From: Craig Shillington Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Success (Sorta!) (Please share ideas!) Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 06:03:57 +1000 Organization: De Ja Vous Lines: 251 Message-ID: <392AE42D.DEC1F8BE@netconnect.com.au> References: <391ad722_1@news3.calweb.com> <391DFC60.2AFAD7DA@satway.com.au> <391E2739.10CF@not-here.net> <3927484F.5BCC5DB9@satway.com.au> <3928C49F.5BC2@not-here.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: hor-as1-p113.netconnect.net.au (203.87.38.113) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 959119709 1305180 203.87.38.113 (16 [27978]) X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newshunter!cosy.sbg.ac.at!newsfeed.Austria.EU.net!nmaster.kpnqwest.net!npeer.kpnqwest.net!blackbush.xlink.net!newscore.gigabell.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!hor-as1-p113.netconnect.net.AU!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:42808 Hi Janice, > > Craig Shillington wrote: > > > > Hi Janice, > > > > Please forgive me, I have been fairly busy and seem to have lost a > > few posts of yours that I wanted to respond to. :( I guess I'll just > > respond to the ones I still have. > > Do you remember what they were about? Maybe I can track them down. The > one with the quote from "Bird" Vanderkeere, maybe? Hmmmm, I'm sure they were along the same thoughts as we are continuing here. :) I wouldn't have a clue now, they have gone from my hard drive and the only way I could find them now is to look through Deja ... which I am reluctant to do for personal reasons. It doesn't matter though, I'm sure we will continue to discuss a variety of subjects and ideas; those I posted should pop up again at some stage. :) I still have the 'Vanerkeere' post from you, so no ... it wasn't that one. :) > > > Yep, same here - I started out tediously "separating" one limb at a > > > time, since that was my idea of the classic OBE. But nowadays, whenever > > > possible, I just get the hell up! :) > > > > How do you find you *get up*? For me, it's not a matter of > > visualizing it, it's more of an instinctive *movement* for want of a > > better word. It seems when I find myself in the vibes, knowing I can > > separate, I will myself OOB more than anything. No thought of moving > > body parts or anything, more thought on getting away from the > > physical. > > I think the best I can describe it is "acting as if I can move" - > behaving just as if I were getting out of bed or off the couch in the > waking world, only it's a mental act, not a physical act. So you basically move physically within your mind? That's not what I do at all. Funny the amount of different methods that various people use to achieve pretty well the same thing. :) Are you still in SP at this stage? When I am in the vibes (the times when I can most easily separate) I find I am also in SP at the same time. Any sort of physical movement at this stage seems near impossible and any thought of physical movement seems to bring me out of the state and awake in the physical out of SP. > > Well, no I wasn't suggesting a difference in naming here. One thing > > I can't understand with you is that you call what we class closely > > as OBE's, LD's. Why is that? > > I guess you lost the post where I explained that at one level of looking > at such things I call any non-waking perceptual experience a dream. > Maybe you have a more pejorative association to the word "dream" than I > do? I can understand how you could view any type of mental stimuli NOT of this waking reality as associated with 'dreaming'. That is not to say that my understanding of dreaming or dreams is less encompassing, IMO. However, am I understanding that you lump most other states of consciousness under the label 'dreams' in such a way. (?) We just have different opinions on what dreaming is. :) You seem to throw OBE's into a dream category, whereas I don't. :) > > Is that because you KNOW you are > > dreaming? My point is, when I have an OBE, I know I am NOT dreaming, > > when I have LD's I know I am. > > Aside from what you call it, what exactly is the difference between the > "dreaming" in your lucid dreams, and the "not-dreaming" in your OBEs? > Maybe knowing that would help me see where you're coming from better. When I simply dream, I have no control over what is happening and I don't even recognize the fact that I am dreaming. The dream ... is my reality while I am having it. I know not that I have a physical body laying in bed dreaming. When I LD, I am fully aware that I am dreaming and that I have a physical body laying in bed asleep and that I have some or total control over what it is that I am dreaming. At any stage I can 'will' myself to wake or change dreams etc. When I am OOB, I am fully aware that I have a physical body laying in bed asleep, I am still fully aware, more so than what I am within a LD, I can control a lot of aspects of the experience, IE. where I want to go, what I want to do, but I have little control over a lot of things that are happening around me. In this way, I believe that I am not in a dream for the sake that I don't have this control yet seem to be even more aware of my state than within a LD. My OBE's DO take on a lot of the aspects of my dreams, differences in locations and their physical counterparts, time travel etc. etc. The difference being, I think, is what I believe or I should say, where I believe the OBE is taking place in respect to my consciousness. For example, you believe a 'typical' OBE takes place on the physical plane, soooooo ... if you had an OBE and everything was perfectly represented as if you were physically there; you check and verify after waking that everything is the same .. and that while having the OBE there is nothing that triggers you to notice discrepancies while having the experience to make you become aware that you are 'dreaming', then you would assume that you are indeed NOT dreaming. YET, you would not be in a physical state, you would still need to be aware yet asleep. So, aren't you still dreaming? I think because of my beliefs and theories about how we sense, or where we are during an OBE, brings me to believe that even though there are *dreamsign* type visuals within the experience ... it still isn't dreaming 'for me'. When does reality blur to dream, and dream blur to alternate reality? With your theory, there is only reality as we know it ... and dreams ... afaics anyway. :) > > What I am asking is, with every > > experience you have had, was there ever a time when you were not in > > this physical state .... but knew without a doubt that it wasn't a > > dream? > > No, but then if I know I am asleep, I would call what I experience a > dream no matter how highly aware I am during it. What, as an example, > would make it not a dream? Well, obviously nothing *for you*. :) I was referring to my OBE's being not dreams while I am asleep. As an example, my OBE's are not dreams and I am aware yet physically asleep. Even before you broke the *cord* (which, btw, I don't believe in) did you still think your OBE's were dreams? Maybe, when I think of it, my OBE's are *dreamlike* in that I don't actually *see* what I sense while OOB, my mind interprets my astral senses into physical form, I guess you could say, my mind gives me the imagery of what I am experiencing based on data from the physical that I have experienced. In this way I guess my visuals could be called dreams, as my mind is producing them, but the experience itself still isn't a dream for me. :) It is a real *non physical* experience, IMO. > > > Seriously, I think you can be dreaming without conceptualizing it as > > > dreaming. If you go into an OBE-type lucid dream or even a > > > hypnagogia-induced lucid dream consciously from waking, you're likely to > > > retain a waking level of awareness and may very well think of it not as > > > dreaming but as being awake. In a sense, you are - your consciousness > > > is still highly activated. > > > > Hmmmmm, are you suggesting that the more *aware* you are, the less > > dream-like your experience is? I hope not. :( > > It's not invariably true, but I do think it's a general tendency. > > > I have had many LD's > > where I have been pretty well fully aware, yet I still knew they > > were dreams. I have had many OBE's where I was fully aware, yet I > > knew they were not dreams, yet not reality as we know it here, not > > this physical reality. > > How would you distinguish them from simply very, very lifelike dreams? > I attempt some dream control, but someone here told me that this isn't > necessarily a good test, since we may simply have super powers in other > realities. Well, I don't think we have any extra *powers* in other realities, we just know how to use the powers we have to a greater ability. We are not bound by the everyday rules of physical life. How would I distinguish them from very, very lifelike dreams? From my experiences with dreams, LD's and OBE's. I just know. When you experience something like I did with my soulmate ... it lets you know (personally only) that it simply is not a dream. > > > In addition to the high degree of awareness, > > > what you perceive may be very vivid, realistic, and hard to control by > > > willpower, so you distinguish it from more traditionally dreamlike > > > experiences. But the same factors are often true of wake-induced lucid > > > dreams and also ordinary lucid dreams where one becomes lucid during the > > > dream instead of retaining a high degree of awareness as sleep begins. > > > The distinctions get muddy pretty quickly, especially with regard to the > > > sort of OBEs that supposedly take place in astral realms or higher > > > dimensions. > > > > Well, from my own thoughts and theories on what is happening during > > an OBE, I would *assume* OBE's never take place in the physical ... > > based on what I believe, that would be impossible. BUT, we can > > gather information from the physical side of things as it is > > represented in the *astral* or OOB state we find ourselves in. There > > is such a difference, for me anyway, between having a very vivid > > and/or realistic experience and knowing if it is a dream or not. I > > mean, I either know I'm dreaming or I know I'm not, you know. When I > > have normal dreams, I don't know I'm dreaming ... but at the same > > time I'm not aware that I am dreaming and I'm not aware that I am > > not dreaming while dreaming. > > There ya go with the tough sentences again ... :) LOL ... Hell, didn't mean for that to sound so .... deep!! ;) > > > You probably missed my early discussions with (The Original) Ken and > > > Richard West, but I'll stand by what I said back then: while I think of > > > all these supposedly discrete states as dreams, it might be profitable > > > to think about the differences between them in terms of two major > > > factors: level of awareness and the source of input for your > > > perceptions. When dreaming, lucid or otherwise, that source of input is > > > usually mundane and internal - activity in the brain, thoughts, > > > emotions, habits, etc. I can, however, imagine the possibility of > > > "psychic" senses that if they existed might sometimes be drawing data > > > from remote locations in the real world into the dream perceptual mix as > > > well, probably subjectively and in a distorted fashion. > > > > Yes, sadly I missed a lot of your earlier posts. :( Sorry if I am > > going over a lot of old ground. > > I have some of the more complicated exchanges printed off in a binder; > they were a lot of fun. > > > Do you believe in the possibility of drawing data from remote > > locations NOT in the real world? Drawing data from a mix of > > consciousness which may be accessible to us while in ASC's? Call > > them dream pools if you like. :) > > > > > Similarly, I > > > don't currently believe in astral realms and higher dimensions, but I am > > > willing to imagine that they exist. If they do then I would guess that > > > in some cases people may "tune in" to them while dreaming, and the > > > perceptions thus gleaned would be incorporated into their > > > dream-construction process. > > > > Hmmmm, you seem to be answering my questions as I ask them. ;) > > Pretty well what I do think. :) > > > > > So if OBErs do sometimes get valid > > > perceptions of remote physical locations that can't be explained by > > > ordinary means, and even if they sometimes access "other realms," they > > > would still be dreaming in my book, just having a different primary > > > source of input for their dream perceptions than usual. Make sense? > > > > LOL, well, sort of, I'm still lost on the notion of dreaming while > > knowing you are not dreaming. (???) > > Or dreaming while not calling it dreaming. :) Touché!! ;) > > You are suggesting that if > > someone was to dream by gathering data from an *astral* location > > .... and if someone was OOB and fully aware they were not dreaming, > > then possible these two things are exactly the same??? > > The same, but approached with a different degree of awareness. And awareness being one of the main crunching points for your argument. :) All the best Craig -- The sure way to make a thing impossible- -is to think it so. --- Franklin -- ###### Message-ID: <392B50BB.42C2@not-here.net> From: Janice X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Success (Sorta!) (Please share ideas!) References: <391ad722_1@news3.calweb.com> <391DFC60.2AFAD7DA@satway.com.au> <391E2739.10CF@not-here.net> <3927484F.5BCC5DB9@satway.com.au> <3928C49F.5BC2@not-here.net> <392AE42D.DEC1F8BE@netconnect.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 228 NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 22:45:28 CDT Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing X-Trace: sv2-Z3TIi0wIH94WWEgha5/0sYdUw5rEkK9t2BF1TgPaaf0AoV9ugW/rQ+/JVOoGpTYIs6bTSvp2a0jIwWw!E1b2iX/fuB+TdjIdFH3EKVJ08Ebc X-Complaints-To: abuse@GigaNews.Com X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 23:47:07 -0400 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!feed2.news.luth.se!luth.se!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!netnews.com!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!nntp.giganews.com!nntp3.giganews.com!news6.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:42757 Craig Shillington wrote: > > Hi Janice, > > > > Craig Shillington wrote: > > > > > > Hi Janice, > > > > > > Please forgive me, I have been fairly busy and seem to have lost a > > > few posts of yours that I wanted to respond to. :( I guess I'll just > > > respond to the ones I still have. > > > > Do you remember what they were about? Maybe I can track them down. The > > one with the quote from "Bird" Vanderkeere, maybe? > > Hmmmm, I'm sure they were along the same thoughts as we are > continuing here. :) I wouldn't have a clue now, they have gone from > my hard drive and the only way I could find them now is to look > through Deja ... which I am reluctant to do for personal reasons. It > doesn't matter though, I'm sure we will continue to discuss a > variety of subjects and ideas; those I posted should pop up again at > some stage. :) I still have the 'Vanerkeere' post from you, so no > ... it wasn't that one. :) No thoughts on that one? > > > How do you find you *get up*? For me, it's not a matter of > > > visualizing it, it's more of an instinctive *movement* for want of a > > > better word. It seems when I find myself in the vibes, knowing I can > > > separate, I will myself OOB more than anything. No thought of moving > > > body parts or anything, more thought on getting away from the > > > physical. > > > > I think the best I can describe it is "acting as if I can move" - > > behaving just as if I were getting out of bed or off the couch in the > > waking world, only it's a mental act, not a physical act. > > So you basically move physically within your mind? That's not what I > do at all. Funny the amount of different methods that various people > use to achieve pretty well the same thing. :) Are you still in SP at > this stage? When I am in the vibes (the times when I can most easily > separate) I find I am also in SP at the same time. Any sort of > physical movement at this stage seems near impossible and any > thought of physical movement seems to bring me out of the state and > awake in the physical out of SP. Yes, I'm in sleep paralysis when I do this. But I don't conceive of it as physical motion; I know my real body ain't movin', and I don't try to move it, just the mental version. It's similar to my earlier technique of just imagining getting up and walking away until appropriate perceptions develop around me, but a little more active. > > I guess you lost the post where I explained that at one level of looking > > at such things I call any non-waking perceptual experience a dream. > > Maybe you have a more pejorative association to the word "dream" than I > > do? > > I can understand how you could view any type of mental stimuli NOT > of this waking reality as associated with 'dreaming'. That is not to > say that my understanding of dreaming or dreams is less > encompassing, IMO. However, am I understanding that you lump most > other states of consciousness under the label 'dreams' in such a > way. (?) We just have different opinions on what dreaming is. :) You > seem to throw OBE's into a dream category, whereas I don't. :) Dreaming to me is any non-waking perceptual experience. If my awareness level is low and I think that everything is actually happening in waking life, then I call them nonlucid dreams. If my awareness level is high and I know I'm not really in the waking world while I'm having them, then I call them lucid dreams (with a few subtypes depending on the extent and nature of this lucidity). When a lucid dream includes perceptions and sensations that make it seem as if I am leaving the body behind, then I call them OBEs. But at the outermost level I think of them all as dreams. > > > > Aside from what you call it, what exactly is the difference between the > > "dreaming" in your lucid dreams, and the "not-dreaming" in your OBEs? > > Maybe knowing that would help me see where you're coming from better. > > When I simply dream, I have no control over what is happening and I > don't even recognize the fact that I am dreaming. The dream ... is > my reality while I am having it. I know not that I have a physical > body laying in bed dreaming. We're definitely in agreement on that one. > When I LD, I am fully aware that I am > dreaming and that I have a physical body laying in bed asleep and > that I have some or total control over what it is that I am > dreaming. At any stage I can 'will' myself to wake or change dreams > etc. OK. > When I am OOB, I am fully aware that I have a physical body > laying in bed asleep, I am still fully aware, more so than what I am > within a LD, I can control a lot of aspects of the experience, IE. > where I want to go, what I want to do, but I have little control > over a lot of things that are happening around me. In this way, I > believe that I am not in a dream for the sake that I don't have this > control yet seem to be even more aware of my state than within a LD. How do you try to control them? I also find that the environment can be more stable and realistic in lucid dreams that I enter consciously from waking (whether using OBE or hypnagogic entry), and direct effort of will doesn't seem quite as effective as it does in some more typical lucid dreams, but I can still manage to exert some kind of control over it. For instance, I might wish for a horse to ride, and one doesn't appear instantly, but after a minute I start seeing them nearby. Or I may suggest to myself that I will meet the person I want to meet after going into a certain building, and then I do. > My OBE's DO take on a lot of the aspects of my dreams, differences > in locations and their physical counterparts, time travel etc. etc. > The difference being, I think, is what I believe or I should say, > where I believe the OBE is taking place in respect to my > consciousness. For example, you believe a 'typical' OBE takes place > on the physical plane, soooooo ... if you had an OBE and everything > was perfectly represented as if you were physically there; you check > and verify after waking that everything is the same .. and that > while having the OBE there is nothing that triggers you to notice > discrepancies while having the experience to make you become aware > that you are 'dreaming', then you would assume that you are indeed > NOT dreaming. YET, you would not be in a physical state, you would > still need to be aware yet asleep. So, aren't you still dreaming? I would consider different possibilities. If it was a really familiar scene and there was nothing special about anything I saw then I would probably conclude that I just had tapped into a wonderfully accurate memory map while dreaming. If I noticed things during the OBE that I later verified as genuine but would not likely have had in my memory or been able to guess from other cues, then I might wonder if it was indeed a literal OBE at last, but I would be more inclined to wonder if I had had some sort of psychic experience and was incorporating clairvoyant perceptions into my dream construction. > I > think because of my beliefs and theories about how we sense, or > where we are during an OBE, brings me to believe that even though > there are *dreamsign* type visuals within the experience ... it > still isn't dreaming 'for me'. When does reality blur to dream, and > dream blur to alternate reality? With your theory, there is only > reality as we know it ... and dreams ... afaics anyway. :) No, my theory doesn't completely rule out the possibility of alternate realities. It just says that if if they do exist and we somehow tuned into them while dreaming we would tend to perceive them with subjective distortions because of the "noise" from the dreaming brain. > > > What I am asking is, with every > > > experience you have had, was there ever a time when you were not in > > > this physical state .... but knew without a doubt that it wasn't a > > > dream? Oh, I thought about this and realized that when I was in college, and for a little while afterwards when I was just getting into heavy-duty experimentation, then I did conceptualize some of the lucid dreams that I entered directly from waking as visits to "other worlds." I can see it in my notes from that time period - things like "Today I entered a very real plane." Whenever the scene was random and very realistic I tended to think of it as another reality, although there could be nagging problems like giant cows walking in the distance. :) In college I used to visit John Lennon in the "land of the dead" sometimes. Later I thought, hey, what's up with trying to meet with dead celebrities all the time? Can I replicate this with living celebrities? Then there's no way it's the "land of the dead," so I can stop being conceited that I'm some sort of medium. :) And of course I found that I could, and, further, that there were no obvious connections between the dream celebrities and the real ones - I'd talk to them about their current projects and these never manifested in waking life. Now if by some amazing fluke I meet one Anthony Hopkins or Huey Lewis someday and he recognizes me from his dreams, I promise to be properly amazed. :) > > No, but then if I know I am asleep, I would call what I experience a > > dream no matter how highly aware I am during it. What, as an example, > > would make it not a dream? > > Well, obviously nothing *for you*. :) I was referring to my OBE's > being not dreams while I am asleep. As an example, my OBE's are not > dreams and I am aware yet physically asleep. Even before you broke > the *cord* (which, btw, I don't believe in) Oh, good for you. :) > did you still think your > OBE's were dreams? I had already decided at that point that they were a type of lucid dream. > Maybe, when I think of it, my OBE's are > *dreamlike* in that I don't actually *see* what I sense while OOB, > my mind interprets my astral senses into physical form, I guess you > could say, my mind gives me the imagery of what I am experiencing > based on data from the physical that I have experienced. In this way > I guess my visuals could be called dreams, as my mind is producing > them, but the experience itself still isn't a dream for me. :) It is > a real *non physical* experience, IMO. OK, I think I can grok that. You believe you're picking up some sort of nonphysical data and your mind weaves it into a dream scene for you. That's still in line with the way I believe dreams are created; you just believe in a source of input for dream perception construction that I don't presently believe in, but can at least imagine. :) So even if you did manage to exert control over an OBE scene, you might conclude that you were controlling your perception of it, but not the underlying source of the perception, right? > > How would you distinguish them from simply very, very lifelike dreams? > > I attempt some dream control, but someone here told me that this isn't > > necessarily a good test, since we may simply have super powers in other > > realities. And I was dubbed a certified astral traveler by this person (Rich West), BTW. :) > Well, I don't think we have any extra *powers* in other realities, > we just know how to use the powers we have to a greater ability. We > are not bound by the everyday rules of physical life. How would I > distinguish them from very, very lifelike dreams? From my > experiences with dreams, LD's and OBE's. I just know. When you > experience something like I did with my soulmate ... it lets you > know (personally only) that it simply is not a dream. Not even a psychic or shared dream? Janice ###### From: Craig Shillington Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Success (Sorta!) (Please share ideas!) Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 11:18:40 +1000 Organization: De Ja Vous Lines: 364 Message-ID: <3931C570.399557A8@netconnect.com.au> References: <391ad722_1@news3.calweb.com> <391DFC60.2AFAD7DA@satway.com.au> <391E2739.10CF@not-here.net> <3927484F.5BCC5DB9@satway.com.au> <3928C49F.5BC2@not-here.net> <392AE42D.DEC1F8BE@netconnect.com.au> <392B50BB.42C2@not-here.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: hor-as1-p82.netconnect.net.au (203.87.38.82) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 959565633 1927447 203.87.38.82 (16 [27978]) X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newspeer.te.net!news.indigo.ie!diablo.theplanet.net!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!hor-as1-p82.netconnect.net.AU!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:43281 Hi Janice, > > Craig Shillington wrote: > > > > Hi Janice, > > > > > > Craig Shillington wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Janice, > > > > > > > > Please forgive me, I have been fairly busy and seem to have lost a > > > > few posts of yours that I wanted to respond to. :( I guess I'll just > > > > respond to the ones I still have. > > > > > > Do you remember what they were about? Maybe I can track them down. The > > > one with the quote from "Bird" Vanderkeere, maybe? > > > > Hmmmm, I'm sure they were along the same thoughts as we are > > continuing here. :) I wouldn't have a clue now, they have gone from > > my hard drive and the only way I could find them now is to look > > through Deja ... which I am reluctant to do for personal reasons. It > > doesn't matter though, I'm sure we will continue to discuss a > > variety of subjects and ideas; those I posted should pop up again at > > some stage. :) I still have the 'Vanerkeere' post from you, so no > > ... it wasn't that one. :) > > No thoughts on that one? Yes, have posted a few of my thoughts in another thread. :) > > > > How do you find you *get up*? For me, it's not a matter of > > > > visualizing it, it's more of an instinctive *movement* for want of a > > > > better word. It seems when I find myself in the vibes, knowing I can > > > > separate, I will myself OOB more than anything. No thought of moving > > > > body parts or anything, more thought on getting away from the > > > > physical. > > > > > > I think the best I can describe it is "acting as if I can move" - > > > behaving just as if I were getting out of bed or off the couch in the > > > waking world, only it's a mental act, not a physical act. > > > > So you basically move physically within your mind? That's not what I > > do at all. Funny the amount of different methods that various people > > use to achieve pretty well the same thing. :) Are you still in SP at > > this stage? When I am in the vibes (the times when I can most easily > > separate) I find I am also in SP at the same time. Any sort of > > physical movement at this stage seems near impossible and any > > thought of physical movement seems to bring me out of the state and > > awake in the physical out of SP. > > Yes, I'm in sleep paralysis when I do this. But I don't conceive of it > as physical motion; I know my real body ain't movin', and I don't try to > move it, just the mental version. It's similar to my earlier technique > of just imagining getting up and walking away until appropriate > perceptions develop around me, but a little more active. When I first started trying to have OBE's, I found myself doing much the same thing to try to get *out*. Using a mental version of getting up and moving around. I soon discovered that this simply is too much to do, or the wrong way about going around it ... for me anyway. I can't explain how I separate, it almost seems like an instinctive thing for me now, but there is no thought of doing such things like pushing myself onto my hands and turning my body and standing etc. It's more a matter of moving my consciousness to another point of view and finding myself there. In this way, I *push* myself out, rather than stand or float out. It seems to be a great effort for me at times to push out too. Maybe using a visualization of *getting up* could work for me also, but my thought is that this may place me in a LD rather than an OBE at times, being more of a *physical* type separation. MAybe when we first begin feeling the sensations of an alternate POV, our subconscious mind fills in the blanks between where our physical mind is and where our POV is, by giving us the sensation (physical) of actually moving to the POV, thus the term OBE was started, as it seemed like we were somehow physically moving away from our physical body due to our subconscious *filling in the blanks*. > > > I guess you lost the post where I explained that at one level of looking > > > at such things I call any non-waking perceptual experience a dream. > > > Maybe you have a more pejorative association to the word "dream" than I > > > do? > > > > I can understand how you could view any type of mental stimuli NOT > > of this waking reality as associated with 'dreaming'. That is not to > > say that my understanding of dreaming or dreams is less > > encompassing, IMO. However, am I understanding that you lump most > > other states of consciousness under the label 'dreams' in such a > > way. (?) We just have different opinions on what dreaming is. :) You > > seem to throw OBE's into a dream category, whereas I don't. :) > > Dreaming to me is any non-waking perceptual experience. If my awareness > level is low and I think that everything is actually happening in waking > life, then I call them nonlucid dreams. If my awareness level is high > and I know I'm not really in the waking world while I'm having them, > then I call them lucid dreams (with a few subtypes depending on the > extent and nature of this lucidity). When a lucid dream includes > perceptions and sensations that make it seem as if I am leaving the body > behind, then I call them OBEs. But at the outermost level I think of > them all as dreams. But you still believe you can have simple LD's of OBE's, no? What sort of things would you have to take into consideration for determining the difference between a fair dinkim OBE and a dreamed one? For me this would include trying to find verifiable evidence to suggest I was at least interacting with the energy from the physical and not simply making the LD seem like an OBE. If you read my post about my visit to my soulmate, you'll know what I mean by this. What sorts of things did you do to determine that your OBE's where simply heightened LD's? What are your thoughts on what dreams are ... or can you conclude that dreams, LD's and your OBE type LD's all take place within your physical brain? > > > Aside from what you call it, what exactly is the difference between the > > > "dreaming" in your lucid dreams, and the "not-dreaming" in your OBEs? > > > Maybe knowing that would help me see where you're coming from better. > > > > When I simply dream, I have no control over what is happening and I > > don't even recognize the fact that I am dreaming. The dream ... is > > my reality while I am having it. I know not that I have a physical > > body laying in bed dreaming. > > We're definitely in agreement on that one. Well, lol, so would most people. :) That's pretty clear cut really. Why is it that dreams are experiences that are subjectively individual, yet no one seems to have any difficulty believing that others do it? > > When I LD, I am fully aware that I am > > dreaming and that I have a physical body laying in bed asleep and > > that I have some or total control over what it is that I am > > dreaming. At any stage I can 'will' myself to wake or change dreams > > etc. > > OK. > > > When I am OOB, I am fully aware that I have a physical body > > laying in bed asleep, I am still fully aware, more so than what I am > > within a LD, I can control a lot of aspects of the experience, IE. > > where I want to go, what I want to do, but I have little control > > over a lot of things that are happening around me. In this way, I > > believe that I am not in a dream for the sake that I don't have this > > control yet seem to be even more aware of my state than within a LD. > > How do you try to control them? I also find that the environment can be > more stable and realistic in lucid dreams that I enter consciously from > waking (whether using OBE or hypnagogic entry), and direct effort of > will doesn't seem quite as effective as it does in some more typical > lucid dreams, but I can still manage to exert some kind of control over > it. For instance, I might wish for a horse to ride, and one doesn't > appear instantly, but after a minute I start seeing them nearby. Or I > may suggest to myself that I will meet the person I want to meet after > going into a certain building, and then I do. By control, I mean ... I have the same sorts of control as I do in a LD ... where I want to go, who I want to see, if I want to come back to my physical body. But, a big difference is, that while in a LD ... having this control seems a lot easier, as it is an experience made up of pure thought. With OBE's, the experience is not all of my own making, there seems to be elements of OBE's that originate not from within me and not from within anyone else. In this way, it can be difficult to have the same control over the experience. Yes, I can still manifest objects from my own thoughts, but I believe that other perceived things are there, not from my own thoughts which have external influences, either from others OOB at the time, or from objects within the physical whose *energy* has an influence in the astral. Why could I see a tree when I visited my soulmate ... which wasn't there anymore? Because I believe all physical objects extend an energy which is perceivable in the astral, so that even after (or before) the object is there in the physical ... it's energy can be perceived astrally as if the object was there in the physical. In this way, I perceived a tree there, at her house ... which had in fact been cut down a year beforehand. Again, this is just based on my theory on how we *see* while we are astral. Ever seen those pictures of leaves using that special photography where you can see the *aura* around the leaf? This is the energy I am talking about. What if you took the leaf away and took a photo again? Or, have you even seen those photos of airforce bases, where the *heat* from aircraft can still be seen where they stood warming up, even though the aircraft are long gone? What if you weren't quite sure what you were looking at at the time? You would swear you were looking down on aircraft sitting on the ground, even though there were no aircraft there. > > My OBE's DO take on a lot of the aspects of my dreams, differences > > in locations and their physical counterparts, time travel etc. etc. > > The difference being, I think, is what I believe or I should say, > > where I believe the OBE is taking place in respect to my > > consciousness. For example, you believe a 'typical' OBE takes place > > on the physical plane, soooooo ... if you had an OBE and everything > > was perfectly represented as if you were physically there; you check > > and verify after waking that everything is the same .. and that > > while having the OBE there is nothing that triggers you to notice > > discrepancies while having the experience to make you become aware > > that you are 'dreaming', then you would assume that you are indeed > > NOT dreaming. YET, you would not be in a physical state, you would > > still need to be aware yet asleep. So, aren't you still dreaming? > > I would consider different possibilities. If it was a really familiar > scene and there was nothing special about anything I saw then I would > probably conclude that I just had tapped into a wonderfully accurate > memory map while dreaming. If I noticed things during the OBE that I > later verified as genuine but would not likely have had in my memory or > been able to guess from other cues, then I might wonder if it was indeed > a literal OBE at last, but I would be more inclined to wonder if I had > had some sort of psychic experience and was incorporating clairvoyant > perceptions into my dream construction. So .... where would your clairvoyance originate from, I mean, where would you gather your information from for your vision of clairvoyance? > > I > > think because of my beliefs and theories about how we sense, or > > where we are during an OBE, brings me to believe that even though > > there are *dreamsign* type visuals within the experience ... it > > still isn't dreaming 'for me'. When does reality blur to dream, and > > dream blur to alternate reality? With your theory, there is only > > reality as we know it ... and dreams ... afaics anyway. :) > > No, my theory doesn't completely rule out the possibility of alternate > realities. It just says that if if they do exist and we somehow tuned > into them while dreaming we would tend to perceive them with subjective > distortions because of the "noise" from the dreaming brain. And this is still how I perceive a lot of my OBE's too. There are so many elements that make up my *real* OBE's that WILL be subjective to my own experience here in the physical, which will determine how I perceive a great amount of the information gathered by me while OOB. If I experience something while OOB, which I have no *memory model* of in the physical ... when I return to the physical and convey to others what I have experienced, my experience while physical will be based purely on my physical memory model only. > > > > What I am asking is, with every > > > > experience you have had, was there ever a time when you were not in > > > > this physical state .... but knew without a doubt that it wasn't a > > > > dream? > > Oh, I thought about this and realized that when I was in college, and > for a little while afterwards when I was just getting into heavy-duty > experimentation, then I did conceptualize some of the lucid dreams that > I entered directly from waking as visits to "other worlds." I can see > it in my notes from that time period - things like "Today I entered a > very real plane." Whenever the scene was random and very realistic I > tended to think of it as another reality, although there could be > nagging problems like giant cows walking in the distance. :) > > In college I used to visit John Lennon in the "land of the dead" > sometimes. Later I thought, hey, what's up with trying to meet with > dead celebrities all the time? Can I replicate this with living > celebrities? Then there's no way it's the "land of the dead," so I can > stop being conceited that I'm some sort of medium. :) And of course I > found that I could, and, further, that there were no obvious connections > between the dream celebrities and the real ones - I'd talk to them > about their current projects and these never manifested in waking life. > Now if by some amazing fluke I meet one Anthony Hopkins or Huey Lewis > someday and he recognizes me from his dreams, I promise to be properly > amazed. :) > > > > No, but then if I know I am asleep, I would call what I experience a > > > dream no matter how highly aware I am during it. What, as an example, > > > would make it not a dream? > > > > Well, obviously nothing *for you*. :) I was referring to my OBE's > > being not dreams while I am asleep. As an example, my OBE's are not > > dreams and I am aware yet physically asleep. Even before you broke > > the *cord* (which, btw, I don't believe in) > > Oh, good for you. :) > > > did you still think your > > OBE's were dreams? > > I had already decided at that point that they were a type of lucid > dream. > > > Maybe, when I think of it, my OBE's are > > *dreamlike* in that I don't actually *see* what I sense while OOB, > > my mind interprets my astral senses into physical form, I guess you > > could say, my mind gives me the imagery of what I am experiencing > > based on data from the physical that I have experienced. In this way > > I guess my visuals could be called dreams, as my mind is producing > > them, but the experience itself still isn't a dream for me. :) It is > > a real *non physical* experience, IMO. > > OK, I think I can grok that. You believe you're picking up some sort of > nonphysical data and your mind weaves it into a dream scene for you. Yes, in a way. The problem I see with my OBE's is that while I am experiencing them, there is no problems with perception and understanding; it's when I return to my physical state that I can't explain some of the things I have experienced and therefore need to resort to my physical memory model for explanation. In this way, while physical, my mind will interpret or *fill in the blanks* with dream type or known models. This is my main sticking point with the 'What's on my monitor' type experiments and why the data gathered from those can be so open to interpretation. > That's still in line with the way I believe dreams are created; you just > believe in a source of input for dream perception construction that I > don't presently believe in, but can at least imagine. :) Ahhhhh, at least you understand what I am saying Janice. :) Yes, constructing visuals using known memories for things we have never experienced before. Does that make it a dream ... I don't think so. It's just a way for us to try to remember something that we have no idea of what it is. Take a sentence, and put a heap of blanks in it. Now ask people to fill it in. Straight away people will start filling in the blanks based on things they have heard before, or based on something that sits right with them. How many different combinations of the one sentence do you think we would come up with? Yet, in the start it was only one known and definite sentence. > So even if you > did manage to exert control over an OBE scene, you might conclude that > you were controlling your perception of it, but not the underlying > source of the perception, right? While OOB, no ... I can only ever discuss with you my perceptions of my OBE's while in a *physical state*, therefore I will ALWAYS be interpreting something based on my physical model. While OOB, my perception of what I sense is *true* to what I am perceiving, the problem lies when conveying the experience while physical, IMO. In this way ... yes, I control my perception of what I *believe* I sensed while OOB; while in a physical state, undermining that which sourced the perception in the first place. > > > How would you distinguish them from simply very, very lifelike dreams? > > > I attempt some dream control, but someone here told me that this isn't > > > necessarily a good test, since we may simply have super powers in other > > > realities. > > And I was dubbed a certified astral traveler by this person (Rich West), > BTW. :) Again, I think we all possess these *super powers* anyway, we simply are more able to use them while in these ASC's. > > Well, I don't think we have any extra *powers* in other realities, > > we just know how to use the powers we have to a greater ability. We > > are not bound by the everyday rules of physical life. How would I > > distinguish them from very, very lifelike dreams? From my > > experiences with dreams, LD's and OBE's. I just know. When you > > experience something like I did with my soulmate ... it lets you > > know (personally only) that it simply is not a dream. > > Not even a psychic or shared dream? If/when you understand how/where we go when we dream, you will understand how I believe we can experience shared dreams and psychic dreams. :) All the best Craig -- The sure way to make a thing impossible- -is to think it so. --- Franklin -- ###### From: "Trish" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <391ad722_1@news3.calweb.com> <391DFC60.2AFAD7DA@satway.com.au> <391E2739.10CF@not-here.net> <3927484F.5BCC5DB9@satway.com.au> <3928C49F.5BC2@not-here.net> <392AE42D.DEC1F8BE@netconnect.com.au> <392B50BB.42C2@not-here.net> <3931C570.399557A8@netconnect.com.au> Subject: Re: Success (Sorta!) (Please share ideas!) Lines: 383 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Message-ID: X-Trace: /b4RlaJs9bMPvI0D0xvApcXNWTNUQX82aynZvgI3WE6WGqL46AdtgLulcfxpsYfael9tYTq5HNPu!h587Mjk77DWLa35Ab0Xk1hBEKAcnpTCVgTvq+oJEe4j3yrRKrdUIV0wRHgAV4PVBsaRBoN6IBU2Q!tkTXy3RYyS4= X-Complaints-To: abuse@gte.net X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 03:18:04 GMT Distribution: world Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 03:18:04 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!netnews.com!feeder.qis.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!washdc3-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:43327 (on bottom) Craig Shillington wrote in message <3931C570.399557A8@netconnect.com.au>... > > >Hi Janice, >> >> Craig Shillington wrote: >> > >> > Hi Janice, >> > > >> > > Craig Shillington wrote: >> > > > >> > > > Hi Janice, >> > > > >> > > > Please forgive me, I have been fairly busy and seem to have lost a >> > > > few posts of yours that I wanted to respond to. :( I guess I'll just >> > > > respond to the ones I still have. >> > > >> > > Do you remember what they were about? Maybe I can track them down. The >> > > one with the quote from "Bird" Vanderkeere, maybe? >> > >> > Hmmmm, I'm sure they were along the same thoughts as we are >> > continuing here. :) I wouldn't have a clue now, they have gone from >> > my hard drive and the only way I could find them now is to look >> > through Deja ... which I am reluctant to do for personal reasons. It >> > doesn't matter though, I'm sure we will continue to discuss a >> > variety of subjects and ideas; those I posted should pop up again at >> > some stage. :) I still have the 'Vanerkeere' post from you, so no >> > ... it wasn't that one. :) >> >> No thoughts on that one? > >Yes, have posted a few of my thoughts in another thread. :) > >> > > > How do you find you *get up*? For me, it's not a matter of >> > > > visualizing it, it's more of an instinctive *movement* for want of a >> > > > better word. It seems when I find myself in the vibes, knowing I can >> > > > separate, I will myself OOB more than anything. No thought of moving >> > > > body parts or anything, more thought on getting away from the >> > > > physical. >> > > >> > > I think the best I can describe it is "acting as if I can move" - >> > > behaving just as if I were getting out of bed or off the couch in the >> > > waking world, only it's a mental act, not a physical act. >> > >> > So you basically move physically within your mind? That's not what I >> > do at all. Funny the amount of different methods that various people >> > use to achieve pretty well the same thing. :) Are you still in SP at >> > this stage? When I am in the vibes (the times when I can most easily >> > separate) I find I am also in SP at the same time. Any sort of >> > physical movement at this stage seems near impossible and any >> > thought of physical movement seems to bring me out of the state and >> > awake in the physical out of SP. >> >> Yes, I'm in sleep paralysis when I do this. But I don't conceive of it >> as physical motion; I know my real body ain't movin', and I don't try to >> move it, just the mental version. It's similar to my earlier technique >> of just imagining getting up and walking away until appropriate >> perceptions develop around me, but a little more active. > >When I first started trying to have OBE's, I found myself doing much >the same thing to try to get *out*. Using a mental version of >getting up and moving around. I soon discovered that this simply is >too much to do, or the wrong way about going around it ... for me >anyway. I can't explain how I separate, it almost seems like an >instinctive thing for me now, but there is no thought of doing such >things like pushing myself onto my hands and turning my body and >standing etc. It's more a matter of moving my consciousness to >another point of view and finding myself there. In this way, I >*push* myself out, rather than stand or float out. It seems to be a >great effort for me at times to push out too. Maybe using a >visualization of *getting up* could work for me also, but my thought >is that this may place me in a LD rather than an OBE at times, being >more of a *physical* type separation. MAybe when we first begin >feeling the sensations of an alternate POV, our subconscious mind >fills in the blanks between where our physical mind is and where our >POV is, by giving us the sensation (physical) of actually moving to >the POV, thus the term OBE was started, as it seemed like we were >somehow physically moving away from our physical body due to our >subconscious *filling in the blanks*. > >> > > I guess you lost the post where I explained that at one level of looking >> > > at such things I call any non-waking perceptual experience a dream. >> > > Maybe you have a more pejorative association to the word "dream" than I >> > > do? >> > >> > I can understand how you could view any type of mental stimuli NOT >> > of this waking reality as associated with 'dreaming'. That is not to >> > say that my understanding of dreaming or dreams is less >> > encompassing, IMO. However, am I understanding that you lump most >> > other states of consciousness under the label 'dreams' in such a >> > way. (?) We just have different opinions on what dreaming is. :) You >> > seem to throw OBE's into a dream category, whereas I don't. :) >> >> Dreaming to me is any non-waking perceptual experience. If my awareness >> level is low and I think that everything is actually happening in waking >> life, then I call them nonlucid dreams. If my awareness level is high >> and I know I'm not really in the waking world while I'm having them, >> then I call them lucid dreams (with a few subtypes depending on the >> extent and nature of this lucidity). When a lucid dream includes >> perceptions and sensations that make it seem as if I am leaving the body >> behind, then I call them OBEs. But at the outermost level I think of >> them all as dreams. > >But you still believe you can have simple LD's of OBE's, no? What >sort of things would you have to take into consideration for >determining the difference between a fair dinkim OBE and a dreamed >one? For me this would include trying to find verifiable evidence to >suggest I was at least interacting with the energy from the physical >and not simply making the LD seem like an OBE. If you read my post >about my visit to my soulmate, you'll know what I mean by this. What >sorts of things did you do to determine that your OBE's where simply >heightened LD's? What are your thoughts on what dreams are ... or >can you conclude that dreams, LD's and your OBE type LD's all take >place within your physical brain? > >> > > Aside from what you call it, what exactly is the difference between the >> > > "dreaming" in your lucid dreams, and the "not-dreaming" in your OBEs? >> > > Maybe knowing that would help me see where you're coming from better. >> > >> > When I simply dream, I have no control over what is happening and I >> > don't even recognize the fact that I am dreaming. The dream ... is >> > my reality while I am having it. I know not that I have a physical >> > body laying in bed dreaming. >> >> We're definitely in agreement on that one. > >Well, lol, so would most people. :) That's pretty clear cut really. >Why is it that dreams are experiences that are subjectively >individual, yet no one seems to have any difficulty believing that >others do it? > >> > When I LD, I am fully aware that I am >> > dreaming and that I have a physical body laying in bed asleep and >> > that I have some or total control over what it is that I am >> > dreaming. At any stage I can 'will' myself to wake or change dreams >> > etc. >> >> OK. >> >> > When I am OOB, I am fully aware that I have a physical body >> > laying in bed asleep, I am still fully aware, more so than what I am >> > within a LD, I can control a lot of aspects of the experience, IE. >> > where I want to go, what I want to do, but I have little control >> > over a lot of things that are happening around me. In this way, I >> > believe that I am not in a dream for the sake that I don't have this >> > control yet seem to be even more aware of my state than within a LD. >> >> How do you try to control them? I also find that the environment can be >> more stable and realistic in lucid dreams that I enter consciously from >> waking (whether using OBE or hypnagogic entry), and direct effort of >> will doesn't seem quite as effective as it does in some more typical >> lucid dreams, but I can still manage to exert some kind of control over >> it. For instance, I might wish for a horse to ride, and one doesn't >> appear instantly, but after a minute I start seeing them nearby. Or I >> may suggest to myself that I will meet the person I want to meet after >> going into a certain building, and then I do. > >By control, I mean ... I have the same sorts of control as I do in a >LD ... where I want to go, who I want to see, if I want to come back >to my physical body. But, a big difference is, that while in a LD >... having this control seems a lot easier, as it is an experience >made up of pure thought. With OBE's, the experience is not all of my >own making, there seems to be elements of OBE's that originate not >from within me and not from within anyone else. In this way, it can >be difficult to have the same control over the experience. Yes, I >can still manifest objects from my own thoughts, but I believe that >other perceived things are there, not from my own thoughts which >have external influences, either from others OOB at the time, or >from objects within the physical whose *energy* has an influence in >the astral. Why could I see a tree when I visited my soulmate ... >which wasn't there anymore? Because I believe all physical objects >extend an energy which is perceivable in the astral, so that even >after (or before) the object is there in the physical ... it's >energy can be perceived astrally as if the object was there in the >physical. In this way, I perceived a tree there, at her house ... >which had in fact been cut down a year beforehand. Again, this is >just based on my theory on how we *see* while we are astral. Ever >seen those pictures of leaves using that special photography where >you can see the *aura* around the leaf? This is the energy I am >talking about. What if you took the leaf away and took a photo >again? Or, have you even seen those photos of airforce bases, where >the *heat* from aircraft can still be seen where they stood warming >up, even though the aircraft are long gone? What if you weren't >quite sure what you were looking at at the time? You would swear you >were looking down on aircraft sitting on the ground, even though >there were no aircraft there. > >> > My OBE's DO take on a lot of the aspects of my dreams, differences >> > in locations and their physical counterparts, time travel etc. etc. >> > The difference being, I think, is what I believe or I should say, >> > where I believe the OBE is taking place in respect to my >> > consciousness. For example, you believe a 'typical' OBE takes place >> > on the physical plane, soooooo ... if you had an OBE and everything >> > was perfectly represented as if you were physically there; you check >> > and verify after waking that everything is the same .. and that >> > while having the OBE there is nothing that triggers you to notice >> > discrepancies while having the experience to make you become aware >> > that you are 'dreaming', then you would assume that you are indeed >> > NOT dreaming. YET, you would not be in a physical state, you would >> > still need to be aware yet asleep. So, aren't you still dreaming? >> >> I would consider different possibilities. If it was a really familiar >> scene and there was nothing special about anything I saw then I would >> probably conclude that I just had tapped into a wonderfully accurate >> memory map while dreaming. If I noticed things during the OBE that I >> later verified as genuine but would not likely have had in my memory or >> been able to guess from other cues, then I might wonder if it was indeed >> a literal OBE at last, but I would be more inclined to wonder if I had >> had some sort of psychic experience and was incorporating clairvoyant >> perceptions into my dream construction. > >So .... where would your clairvoyance originate from, I mean, where >would you gather your information from for your vision of >clairvoyance? > >> > I >> > think because of my beliefs and theories about how we sense, or >> > where we are during an OBE, brings me to believe that even though >> > there are *dreamsign* type visuals within the experience ... it >> > still isn't dreaming 'for me'. When does reality blur to dream, and >> > dream blur to alternate reality? With your theory, there is only >> > reality as we know it ... and dreams ... afaics anyway. :) >> >> No, my theory doesn't completely rule out the possibility of alternate >> realities. It just says that if if they do exist and we somehow tuned >> into them while dreaming we would tend to perceive them with subjective >> distortions because of the "noise" from the dreaming brain. > >And this is still how I perceive a lot of my OBE's too. There are so >many elements that make up my *real* OBE's that WILL be subjective >to my own experience here in the physical, which will determine how >I perceive a great amount of the information gathered by me while >OOB. If I experience something while OOB, which I have no *memory >model* of in the physical ... when I return to the physical and >convey to others what I have experienced, my experience while >physical will be based purely on my physical memory model only. > >> > > > What I am asking is, with every >> > > > experience you have had, was there ever a time when you were not in >> > > > this physical state .... but knew without a doubt that it wasn't a >> > > > dream? >> >> Oh, I thought about this and realized that when I was in college, and >> for a little while afterwards when I was just getting into heavy-duty >> experimentation, then I did conceptualize some of the lucid dreams that >> I entered directly from waking as visits to "other worlds." I can see >> it in my notes from that time period - things like "Today I entered a >> very real plane." Whenever the scene was random and very realistic I >> tended to think of it as another reality, although there could be >> nagging problems like giant cows walking in the distance. :) >> >> In college I used to visit John Lennon in the "land of the dead" >> sometimes. Later I thought, hey, what's up with trying to meet with >> dead celebrities all the time? Can I replicate this with living >> celebrities? Then there's no way it's the "land of the dead," so I can >> stop being conceited that I'm some sort of medium. :) And of course I >> found that I could, and, further, that there were no obvious connections >> between the dream celebrities and the real ones - I'd talk to them >> about their current projects and these never manifested in waking life. >> Now if by some amazing fluke I meet one Anthony Hopkins or Huey Lewis >> someday and he recognizes me from his dreams, I promise to be properly >> amazed. :) >> >> > > No, but then if I know I am asleep, I would call what I experience a >> > > dream no matter how highly aware I am during it. What, as an example, >> > > would make it not a dream? >> > >> > Well, obviously nothing *for you*. :) I was referring to my OBE's >> > being not dreams while I am asleep. As an example, my OBE's are not >> > dreams and I am aware yet physically asleep. Even before you broke >> > the *cord* (which, btw, I don't believe in) >> >> Oh, good for you. :) >> >> > did you still think your >> > OBE's were dreams? >> >> I had already decided at that point that they were a type of lucid >> dream. >> >> > Maybe, when I think of it, my OBE's are >> > *dreamlike* in that I don't actually *see* what I sense while OOB, >> > my mind interprets my astral senses into physical form, I guess you >> > could say, my mind gives me the imagery of what I am experiencing >> > based on data from the physical that I have experienced. In this way >> > I guess my visuals could be called dreams, as my mind is producing >> > them, but the experience itself still isn't a dream for me. :) It is >> > a real *non physical* experience, IMO. >> >> OK, I think I can grok that. You believe you're picking up some sort of >> nonphysical data and your mind weaves it into a dream scene for you. > >Yes, in a way. The problem I see with my OBE's is that while I am >experiencing them, there is no problems with perception and >understanding; it's when I return to my physical state that I can't >explain some of the things I have experienced and therefore need to >resort to my physical memory model for explanation. In this way, >while physical, my mind will interpret or *fill in the blanks* with >dream type or known models. This is my main sticking point with the >'What's on my monitor' type experiments and why the data gathered >from those can be so open to interpretation. > >> That's still in line with the way I believe dreams are created; you just >> believe in a source of input for dream perception construction that I >> don't presently believe in, but can at least imagine. :) > >Ahhhhh, at least you understand what I am saying Janice. :) Yes, >constructing visuals using known memories for things we have never >experienced before. Does that make it a dream ... I don't think so. >It's just a way for us to try to remember something that we have no >idea of what it is. Take a sentence, and put a heap of blanks in it. >Now ask people to fill it in. Straight away people will start >filling in the blanks based on things they have heard before, or >based on something that sits right with them. How many different >combinations of the one sentence do you think we would come up with? >Yet, in the start it was only one known and definite sentence. > >> So even if you >> did manage to exert control over an OBE scene, you might conclude that >> you were controlling your perception of it, but not the underlying >> source of the perception, right? > >While OOB, no ... I can only ever discuss with you my perceptions of >my OBE's while in a *physical state*, therefore I will ALWAYS be >interpreting something based on my physical model. While OOB, my >perception of what I sense is *true* to what I am perceiving, the >problem lies when conveying the experience while physical, IMO. In >this way ... yes, I control my perception of what I *believe* I >sensed while OOB; while in a physical state, undermining that which >sourced the perception in the first place. > >> > > How would you distinguish them from simply very, very lifelike dreams? >> > > I attempt some dream control, but someone here told me that this isn't >> > > necessarily a good test, since we may simply have super powers in other >> > > realities. >> >> And I was dubbed a certified astral traveler by this person (Rich West), >> BTW. :) > >Again, I think we all possess these *super powers* anyway, we simply >are more able to use them while in these ASC's. > >> > Well, I don't think we have any extra *powers* in other realities, >> > we just know how to use the powers we have to a greater ability. We >> > are not bound by the everyday rules of physical life. How would I >> > distinguish them from very, very lifelike dreams? From my >> > experiences with dreams, LD's and OBE's. I just know. When you >> > experience something like I did with my soulmate ... it lets you >> > know (personally only) that it simply is not a dream. >> >> Not even a psychic or shared dream? > >If/when you understand how/where we go when we dream, you will >understand how I believe we can experience shared dreams and psychic >dreams. :) > >All the best >Craig Sorry. Didn't want to snip. Craig, I *think* know what you mean. There are times during OBEs that I perceive things that have no known physical equivalent. Like certain colors for instance. It makes perfect sense during the OBE, but when I later wake up, I can't make the match. All I recall is what I was thinking at the time. ###### From: Craig Shillington Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Success (Sorta!) (Please share ideas!) Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 16:48:57 +1000 Organization: De Ja Vous Lines: 105 Message-ID: <393212D9.9353A2C9@netconnect.com.au> References: <391ad722_1@news3.calweb.com> <391DFC60.2AFAD7DA@satway.com.au> <391E2739.10CF@not-here.net> <3927484F.5BCC5DB9@satway.com.au> <3928C49F.5BC2@not-here.net> <392AE42D.DEC1F8BE@netconnect.com.au> <392B50BB.42C2@not-here.net> <3931C570.399557A8@netconnect.com.au> NNTP-Posting-Host: hor-as1-p23.netconnect.net.au (203.87.38.23) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 959589946 1987302 203.87.38.23 (16 [27978]) X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!hor-as1-p23.netconnect.net.AU!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:43282 Hi Trish, > > (on bottom) > >While OOB, no ... I can only ever discuss with you my perceptions of > >my OBE's while in a *physical state*, therefore I will ALWAYS be > >interpreting something based on my physical model. While OOB, my > >perception of what I sense is *true* to what I am perceiving, the > >problem lies when conveying the experience while physical, IMO. In > >this way ... yes, I control my perception of what I *believe* I > >sensed while OOB; while in a physical state, undermining that which > >sourced the perception in the first place. > > > >> > > How would you distinguish them from simply very, very lifelike > dreams? > >> > > I attempt some dream control, but someone here told me that this > isn't > >> > > necessarily a good test, since we may simply have super powers in > other > >> > > realities. > >> > >> And I was dubbed a certified astral traveler by this person (Rich West), > >> BTW. :) > > > >Again, I think we all possess these *super powers* anyway, we simply > >are more able to use them while in these ASC's. > > > >> > Well, I don't think we have any extra *powers* in other realities, > >> > we just know how to use the powers we have to a greater ability. We > >> > are not bound by the everyday rules of physical life. How would I > >> > distinguish them from very, very lifelike dreams? From my > >> > experiences with dreams, LD's and OBE's. I just know. When you > >> > experience something like I did with my soulmate ... it lets you > >> > know (personally only) that it simply is not a dream. > >> > >> Not even a psychic or shared dream? > > > >If/when you understand how/where we go when we dream, you will > >understand how I believe we can experience shared dreams and psychic > >dreams. :) > > > >All the best > >Craig > > Sorry. Didn't want to snip. > > Craig, I *think* know what you mean. There are times during OBEs that I > perceive things that have no known physical equivalent. Like certain colors > for instance. It makes perfect sense during the OBE, but when I later wake > up, I can't make the match. All I recall is what I was thinking at the > time. YES!!!! That's how I feel Trish, only this not only applies to non physical concepts, IMO, but also to those things physical we have no knowledge of or even some things that we simply misinterpret all together. I'll assume you have read my account of the visit with my soulmate. Point of interest, for me, was the room she was adding on the house. I perceived this as scaffolding and a pit full of rubbish, when it was a room with the sub frame up and you had to step down into it and all the tools and equipment they were using were scattered on the floor. I have seen rooms with sub frames and I have seen tools before but I misinterpreted what I had seen and based what I perceived on something else within my memory model that suited the perception well. This is why I disregard a lot of the 'see what's on my monitor posts', for this very reason, there will never be a 100% chance that we can observe and report with 100% accuracy. This is not an excuse ... this is fact, it's the way the human mind fills in the blanks. Now what of things we perceive astrally, that we fully understand while we are astral, yet when we return to the physical and try to write down our experience and what we *saw*? It's humanly impossible to do. How do I explain a colour I have never seen before in the physical? A sound never heard before? A concept that is simply impossible to convey while physical? I can't, so I do the next best think and work with what I have stored up in my physical memory base, to find the closest match *FOR ME*. That being an important point, because how *I* interpret something, will most likely be completely different to how you will interpret it and so we move further and further away from any sort of verifiable proof at this stage. It's a catch 22 really, even when we are looking for proof for ourselves, we may inadvertently dismiss some hits because we have misinterpreted them in such a way as to cloud the true perception of the experience. Not saying that all near hits would be hits, just saying that we need to have more of an understanding as to how we perceive while OOB and how we interpret our perceptions when in a physical state. Not just those having the experiences, but also those who would want to test us looking for some sort of proof. I'll never figure a person who believes that it's simply a matter of putting a card out of sight somewhere and getting OOB and looking at the card and confirming that afterwards. We simply don't see with our physical eyes ... and we don't see what is physical IMO, so how would this sort of test prove anything? It can't. And it never will, IMO. All the best Craig -- The sure way to make a thing impossible- -is to think it so. --- Franklin -- ###### From: "Trish" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <391ad722_1@news3.calweb.com> <391DFC60.2AFAD7DA@satway.com.au> <391E2739.10CF@not-here.net> <3927484F.5BCC5DB9@satway.com.au> <3928C49F.5BC2@not-here.net> <392AE42D.DEC1F8BE@netconnect.com.au> <392B50BB.42C2@not-here.net> <3931C570.399557A8@netconnect.com.au> <393212D9.9353A2C9@netconnect.com.au> Subject: Re: Success (Sorta!) (Please share ideas!) Lines: 115 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Message-ID: X-Trace: /wsQ0/Ieaft9G9p9hF2fB74K4/91LtHPx658TMagYQmYzsCxDq3ppzj4qdKbQanZM/ZKVnWNUFea!w5Tf1+rDYQv/tf+cnOSLDKwd1gqO8taDmm+czmabt3IcXF4nKlQvMIQjseo8w4kmyfFf0+Jsyhwh!ZWmQM9U= X-Complaints-To: abuse@gte.net X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 15:34:15 GMT Distribution: world Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 15:34:15 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newspeer.te.net!news.indigo.ie!diablo.theplanet.net!newsfeed.icl.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!washdc3-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:43300 Craig Shillington wrote in message <393212D9.9353A2C9@netconnect.com.au>... > > >Hi Trish, >> >> (on bottom) > > > >> >While OOB, no ... I can only ever discuss with you my perceptions of >> >my OBE's while in a *physical state*, therefore I will ALWAYS be >> >interpreting something based on my physical model. While OOB, my >> >perception of what I sense is *true* to what I am perceiving, the >> >problem lies when conveying the experience while physical, IMO. In >> >this way ... yes, I control my perception of what I *believe* I >> >sensed while OOB; while in a physical state, undermining that which >> >sourced the perception in the first place. >> > >> >> > > How would you distinguish them from simply very, very lifelike >> dreams? >> >> > > I attempt some dream control, but someone here told me that this >> isn't >> >> > > necessarily a good test, since we may simply have super powers in >> other >> >> > > realities. >> >> >> >> And I was dubbed a certified astral traveler by this person (Rich West), >> >> BTW. :) >> > >> >Again, I think we all possess these *super powers* anyway, we simply >> >are more able to use them while in these ASC's. >> > >> >> > Well, I don't think we have any extra *powers* in other realities, >> >> > we just know how to use the powers we have to a greater ability. We >> >> > are not bound by the everyday rules of physical life. How would I >> >> > distinguish them from very, very lifelike dreams? From my >> >> > experiences with dreams, LD's and OBE's. I just know. When you >> >> > experience something like I did with my soulmate ... it lets you >> >> > know (personally only) that it simply is not a dream. >> >> >> >> Not even a psychic or shared dream? >> > >> >If/when you understand how/where we go when we dream, you will >> >understand how I believe we can experience shared dreams and psychic >> >dreams. :) >> > >> >All the best >> >Craig >> >> Sorry. Didn't want to snip. >> >> Craig, I *think* know what you mean. There are times during OBEs that I >> perceive things that have no known physical equivalent. Like certain colors >> for instance. It makes perfect sense during the OBE, but when I later wake >> up, I can't make the match. All I recall is what I was thinking at the >> time. > >YES!!!! That's how I feel Trish, only this not only applies to non >physical concepts, IMO, but also to those things physical we have no >knowledge of or even some things that we simply misinterpret all >together. I'll assume you have read my account of the visit with my >soulmate. Point of interest, for me, was the room she was adding on >the house. I perceived this as scaffolding and a pit full of >rubbish, when it was a room with the sub frame up and you had to >step down into it and all the tools and equipment they were using >were scattered on the floor. I have seen rooms with sub frames and I >have seen tools before but I misinterpreted what I had seen and >based what I perceived on something else within my memory model that >suited the perception well. This is why I disregard a lot of the >'see what's on my monitor posts', for this very reason, there will >never be a 100% chance that we can observe and report with 100% >accuracy. This is not an excuse ... this is fact, it's the way the >human mind fills in the blanks. Now what of things we perceive >astrally, that we fully understand while we are astral, yet when we >return to the physical and try to write down our experience and what >we *saw*? It's humanly impossible to do. How do I explain a colour I >have never seen before in the physical? A sound never heard before? >A concept that is simply impossible to convey while physical? I >can't, so I do the next best think and work with what I have stored >up in my physical memory base, to find the closest match *FOR ME*. >That being an important point, because how *I* interpret something, >will most likely be completely different to how you will interpret >it and so we move further and further away from any sort of >verifiable proof at this stage. It's a catch 22 really, even when we >are looking for proof for ourselves, we may inadvertently dismiss >some hits because we have misinterpreted them in such a way as to >cloud the true perception of the experience. Not saying that all >near hits would be hits, just saying that we need to have more of an >understanding as to how we perceive while OOB and how we interpret >our perceptions when in a physical state. Not just those having the >experiences, but also those who would want to test us looking for >some sort of proof. I'll never figure a person who believes that >it's simply a matter of putting a card out of sight somewhere and >getting OOB and looking at the card and confirming that afterwards. >We simply don't see with our physical eyes ... and we don't see what >is physical IMO, so how would this sort of test prove anything? It >can't. And it never will, IMO. I do understand what you mean then. Actually ... this is probably one of the reasons I sometimes feel very compelled to wake myself up from an OBE and quickly record what I've just seen. There is still some small lingering hope that I can accurately record it. Most of the experience can be recalled, but sometimes there are holes and gaps with strong emotional or mental undertones that I have no tool to express. I can also see your point about interpreting what we have no knowledge of, and filling in the blanks. Is there a way we could train our minds *not* to fill in the blanks? I'm not sure if we can. ###### X-Originating-Host: 194.117.12.161 Organization: http://www.remarq.com: The World's Usenet/Discussions Start Here Subject: Re: Success (Sorta!) (Please share ideas!) Lines: 29 From: Daniel Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Message-ID: <0058193b.c75141cc@usw-ex0105-034.remarq.com> References: <391ad722_1@news3.calweb.com> <391DFC60.2AFAD7DA@satway.com.au> <391E2739.10CF@not-here.net> <3927484F.5BCC5DB9@satway.com.au> <3928C49F.5BC2@not-here.net> <392AE42D.DEC1F8BE@netconnect.com.au> <392B50BB.42C2@not-here.net> <3931C570.399557A8@netconnect.com.au> <393212D9.9353A2C9@netconnect.com.au> Bytes: 1435 X-Wren-Trace: eLCVvbyl4qjj5K25sv+8uLass5W9u+SrtLWz/bqrpLDu76T/76Hy8O3j+uTooQ== Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 04:35:56 -0700 NNTP-Posting-Host: 10.0.2.34 X-Complaints-To: wrenabuse@remarq.com X-Trace: WReNphoon4 959686652 10.0.2.34 (Tue, 30 May 2000 04:37:32 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 04:37:32 PDT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!netnews.com!upp1.onvoy!onvoy.com!hermes.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!sn-xit-03!supernews.com!sn-inject-01!WReNclone!WReNphoon4.POSTED!WReN!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:43456 I had a srange experience too, but i´m not sure if it was an obe: I was in bed (don´t know if already sleeping) when i started to feel i was falling or moving at high speed in the limb.Then i think i thought that when i stopped i would be out of my body. I stopped i don´t remember where in the house...maybe in my room. I looked at my bed but my vision was distorted...i think i saw the bed but not me in it. I moved about in my house, but i think my consciouness was moving near the floor...i couldn´t float in spite of trying to rise in the air... i went to the window to try to fly by jumping from it...but i started to think maybe i wasn´t having an obe, and was just sleep-walking(but i don´t sleep-walk as far as i know-but inthat time i didn´t think about it) and that if i jumped i could be in fact killing my self!!!I eventually woke up, don´t remember when... It is possible that i was sleep-walking and seeing things with my eyes closed with astral body vision, or there are sleep-walking people that can see through physical eyes? It is possible that it was in fact an obe?? I don´t like very much of the possibility of killing my self unintentionally by jumping from a 5th floor while i´m imagining that i´m having an obe...urgh!! Daniel * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free! ###### From: Craig Shillington Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Success (Sorta!) (Please share ideas!) Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 01:49:17 +1000 Organization: De Ja Vous Lines: 143 Message-ID: <3933E2FD.CB3D6EDE@netconnect.com.au> References: <391ad722_1@news3.calweb.com> <391DFC60.2AFAD7DA@satway.com.au> <391E2739.10CF@not-here.net> <3927484F.5BCC5DB9@satway.com.au> <3928C49F.5BC2@not-here.net> <392AE42D.DEC1F8BE@netconnect.com.au> <392B50BB.42C2@not-here.net> <3931C570.399557A8@netconnect.com.au> <393212D9.9353A2C9@netconnect.com.au> NNTP-Posting-Host: hor-as1-p16.netconnect.net.au (203.87.38.16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 959710009 2317429 203.87.38.16 (16 [27978]) X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!hor-as1-p16.netconnect.net.AU!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:43450 Hi Trish, > > Craig Shillington wrote in message <393212D9.9353A2C9@netconnect.com.au>... > > > > > >Hi Trish, > >> > >> (on bottom) > > > > > > > >> >While OOB, no ... I can only ever discuss with you my perceptions of > >> >my OBE's while in a *physical state*, therefore I will ALWAYS be > >> >interpreting something based on my physical model. While OOB, my > >> >perception of what I sense is *true* to what I am perceiving, the > >> >problem lies when conveying the experience while physical, IMO. In > >> >this way ... yes, I control my perception of what I *believe* I > >> >sensed while OOB; while in a physical state, undermining that which > >> >sourced the perception in the first place. > >> > > >> >> > > How would you distinguish them from simply very, very lifelike > >> dreams? > >> >> > > I attempt some dream control, but someone here told me that this > >> isn't > >> >> > > necessarily a good test, since we may simply have super powers in > >> other > >> >> > > realities. > >> >> > >> >> And I was dubbed a certified astral traveler by this person (Rich > West), > >> >> BTW. :) > >> > > >> >Again, I think we all possess these *super powers* anyway, we simply > >> >are more able to use them while in these ASC's. > >> > > >> >> > Well, I don't think we have any extra *powers* in other realities, > >> >> > we just know how to use the powers we have to a greater ability. We > >> >> > are not bound by the everyday rules of physical life. How would I > >> >> > distinguish them from very, very lifelike dreams? From my > >> >> > experiences with dreams, LD's and OBE's. I just know. When you > >> >> > experience something like I did with my soulmate ... it lets you > >> >> > know (personally only) that it simply is not a dream. > >> >> > >> >> Not even a psychic or shared dream? > >> > > >> >If/when you understand how/where we go when we dream, you will > >> >understand how I believe we can experience shared dreams and psychic > >> >dreams. :) > >> > > >> >All the best > >> >Craig > >> > >> Sorry. Didn't want to snip. > >> > >> Craig, I *think* know what you mean. There are times during OBEs that I > >> perceive things that have no known physical equivalent. Like certain > colors > >> for instance. It makes perfect sense during the OBE, but when I later > wake > >> up, I can't make the match. All I recall is what I was thinking at the > >> time. > > > >YES!!!! That's how I feel Trish, only this not only applies to non > >physical concepts, IMO, but also to those things physical we have no > >knowledge of or even some things that we simply misinterpret all > >together. I'll assume you have read my account of the visit with my > >soulmate. Point of interest, for me, was the room she was adding on > >the house. I perceived this as scaffolding and a pit full of > >rubbish, when it was a room with the sub frame up and you had to > >step down into it and all the tools and equipment they were using > >were scattered on the floor. I have seen rooms with sub frames and I > >have seen tools before but I misinterpreted what I had seen and > >based what I perceived on something else within my memory model that > >suited the perception well. This is why I disregard a lot of the > >'see what's on my monitor posts', for this very reason, there will > >never be a 100% chance that we can observe and report with 100% > >accuracy. This is not an excuse ... this is fact, it's the way the > >human mind fills in the blanks. Now what of things we perceive > >astrally, that we fully understand while we are astral, yet when we > >return to the physical and try to write down our experience and what > >we *saw*? It's humanly impossible to do. How do I explain a colour I > >have never seen before in the physical? A sound never heard before? > >A concept that is simply impossible to convey while physical? I > >can't, so I do the next best think and work with what I have stored > >up in my physical memory base, to find the closest match *FOR ME*. > >That being an important point, because how *I* interpret something, > >will most likely be completely different to how you will interpret > >it and so we move further and further away from any sort of > >verifiable proof at this stage. It's a catch 22 really, even when we > >are looking for proof for ourselves, we may inadvertently dismiss > >some hits because we have misinterpreted them in such a way as to > >cloud the true perception of the experience. Not saying that all > >near hits would be hits, just saying that we need to have more of an > >understanding as to how we perceive while OOB and how we interpret > >our perceptions when in a physical state. Not just those having the > >experiences, but also those who would want to test us looking for > >some sort of proof. I'll never figure a person who believes that > >it's simply a matter of putting a card out of sight somewhere and > >getting OOB and looking at the card and confirming that afterwards. > >We simply don't see with our physical eyes ... and we don't see what > >is physical IMO, so how would this sort of test prove anything? It > >can't. And it never will, IMO. > > I do understand what you mean then. Actually ... this is probably one of > the reasons I sometimes feel very compelled to wake myself up from an OBE > and quickly record what I've just seen. There is still some small lingering > hope that I can accurately record it. Most of the experience can be > recalled, but sometimes there are holes and gaps with strong emotional or > mental undertones that I have no tool to express. I sometimes wonder ... if what we think we have perceived to be correct, actually isn't accurate. I guess there is no way to know this for sure. I also need to stress a point, that while I am OOB, all these things I don't understand or have no knowledge of while physical, make perfect sense while in the state of being OOB. While I am having the experience, it all makes perfect sense to me, it's when I come back here .. it seems as if something is missing, there are pieces of the jigsaw that don't quite fit right anymore. > I can also see your point about interpreting what we have no knowledge of, > and filling in the blanks. Is there a way we could train our minds *not* to > fill in the blanks? I'm not sure if we can. If you mean, train our minds to leave the data as it is represented while having the experience ... I would guess if we could learn to meditate more deeply, we may be able to get to a state where we start to remember the experiences more clearly, yet still; we need to be able to interpret our experiences into something understandable while in the physical state as well. Maybe there is a way we can train ourselves, not so much to fill in the blanks, but to overlap the data when necessary, rather than interpret the original data and then disregard what we initially experienced. :) All the best Craig -- The sure way to make a thing impossible- -is to think it so. --- Franklin -- ###### From: "Trish" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <391ad722_1@news3.calweb.com> <391DFC60.2AFAD7DA@satway.com.au> <391E2739.10CF@not-here.net> <3927484F.5BCC5DB9@satway.com.au> <3928C49F.5BC2@not-here.net> <392AE42D.DEC1F8BE@netconnect.com.au> <392B50BB.42C2@not-here.net> <3931C570.399557A8@netconnect.com.au> <393212D9.9353A2C9@netconnect.com.au> <3933E2FD.CB3D6EDE@netconnect.com.au> Subject: Re: Success (Sorta!) (Please share ideas!) Lines: 162 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Message-ID: X-Trace: /wzJ5tS+x3NsAZTCAPHXsdGv8Cmp2ewGd3oS/eWr21mAiWB6SymrRI+7iQPeyUSQKJHYnj3a29Ga!GxPDThPwJPnZpZxX9aihvU/PYPDUW9Ya0jVf8255X81UGz+pQA4lry9xfJgIKL0R2kUGwsUcuXa3!2yEVhyvEdTw= X-Complaints-To: abuse@gte.net X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 03:10:26 GMT Distribution: world Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 03:10:27 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!europa.netcrusader.net!4.1.16.34!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!washdc3-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:43526 Craig Shillington wrote in message <3933E2FD.CB3D6EDE@netconnect.com.au>... > > >Hi Trish, >> >> Craig Shillington wrote in message <393212D9.9353A2C9@netconnect.com.au>... >> > >> > >> >Hi Trish, >> >> >> >> (on bottom) >> > >> > >> > >> >> >While OOB, no ... I can only ever discuss with you my perceptions of >> >> >my OBE's while in a *physical state*, therefore I will ALWAYS be >> >> >interpreting something based on my physical model. While OOB, my >> >> >perception of what I sense is *true* to what I am perceiving, the >> >> >problem lies when conveying the experience while physical, IMO. In >> >> >this way ... yes, I control my perception of what I *believe* I >> >> >sensed while OOB; while in a physical state, undermining that which >> >> >sourced the perception in the first place. >> >> > >> >> >> > > How would you distinguish them from simply very, very lifelike >> >> dreams? >> >> >> > > I attempt some dream control, but someone here told me that this >> >> isn't >> >> >> > > necessarily a good test, since we may simply have super powers in >> >> other >> >> >> > > realities. >> >> >> >> >> >> And I was dubbed a certified astral traveler by this person (Rich >> West), >> >> >> BTW. :) >> >> > >> >> >Again, I think we all possess these *super powers* anyway, we simply >> >> >are more able to use them while in these ASC's. >> >> > >> >> >> > Well, I don't think we have any extra *powers* in other realities, >> >> >> > we just know how to use the powers we have to a greater ability. We >> >> >> > are not bound by the everyday rules of physical life. How would I >> >> >> > distinguish them from very, very lifelike dreams? From my >> >> >> > experiences with dreams, LD's and OBE's. I just know. When you >> >> >> > experience something like I did with my soulmate ... it lets you >> >> >> > know (personally only) that it simply is not a dream. >> >> >> >> >> >> Not even a psychic or shared dream? >> >> > >> >> >If/when you understand how/where we go when we dream, you will >> >> >understand how I believe we can experience shared dreams and psychic >> >> >dreams. :) >> >> > >> >> >All the best >> >> >Craig >> >> >> >> Sorry. Didn't want to snip. >> >> >> >> Craig, I *think* know what you mean. There are times during OBEs that I >> >> perceive things that have no known physical equivalent. Like certain >> colors >> >> for instance. It makes perfect sense during the OBE, but when I later >> wake >> >> up, I can't make the match. All I recall is what I was thinking at the >> >> time. >> > >> >YES!!!! That's how I feel Trish, only this not only applies to non >> >physical concepts, IMO, but also to those things physical we have no >> >knowledge of or even some things that we simply misinterpret all >> >together. I'll assume you have read my account of the visit with my >> >soulmate. Point of interest, for me, was the room she was adding on >> >the house. I perceived this as scaffolding and a pit full of >> >rubbish, when it was a room with the sub frame up and you had to >> >step down into it and all the tools and equipment they were using >> >were scattered on the floor. I have seen rooms with sub frames and I >> >have seen tools before but I misinterpreted what I had seen and >> >based what I perceived on something else within my memory model that >> >suited the perception well. This is why I disregard a lot of the >> >'see what's on my monitor posts', for this very reason, there will >> >never be a 100% chance that we can observe and report with 100% >> >accuracy. This is not an excuse ... this is fact, it's the way the >> >human mind fills in the blanks. Now what of things we perceive >> >astrally, that we fully understand while we are astral, yet when we >> >return to the physical and try to write down our experience and what >> >we *saw*? It's humanly impossible to do. How do I explain a colour I >> >have never seen before in the physical? A sound never heard before? >> >A concept that is simply impossible to convey while physical? I >> >can't, so I do the next best think and work with what I have stored >> >up in my physical memory base, to find the closest match *FOR ME*. >> >That being an important point, because how *I* interpret something, >> >will most likely be completely different to how you will interpret >> >it and so we move further and further away from any sort of >> >verifiable proof at this stage. It's a catch 22 really, even when we >> >are looking for proof for ourselves, we may inadvertently dismiss >> >some hits because we have misinterpreted them in such a way as to >> >cloud the true perception of the experience. Not saying that all >> >near hits would be hits, just saying that we need to have more of an >> >understanding as to how we perceive while OOB and how we interpret >> >our perceptions when in a physical state. Not just those having the >> >experiences, but also those who would want to test us looking for >> >some sort of proof. I'll never figure a person who believes that >> >it's simply a matter of putting a card out of sight somewhere and >> >getting OOB and looking at the card and confirming that afterwards. >> >We simply don't see with our physical eyes ... and we don't see what >> >is physical IMO, so how would this sort of test prove anything? It >> >can't. And it never will, IMO. >> >> I do understand what you mean then. Actually ... this is probably one of >> the reasons I sometimes feel very compelled to wake myself up from an OBE >> and quickly record what I've just seen. There is still some small lingering >> hope that I can accurately record it. Most of the experience can be >> recalled, but sometimes there are holes and gaps with strong emotional or >> mental undertones that I have no tool to express. > >I sometimes wonder ... if what we think we have perceived to be >correct, actually isn't accurate. I guess there is no way to know >this for sure. I also need to stress a point, that while I am OOB, >all these things I don't understand or have no knowledge of while >physical, make perfect sense while in the state of being OOB. While >I am having the experience, it all makes perfect sense to me, it's >when I come back here .. it seems as if something is missing, there >are pieces of the jigsaw that don't quite fit right anymore. > >> I can also see your point about interpreting what we have no knowledge of, >> and filling in the blanks. Is there a way we could train our minds *not* to >> fill in the blanks? I'm not sure if we can. > >If you mean, train our minds to leave the data as it is represented >while having the experience ... I would guess if we could learn to >meditate more deeply, we may be able to get to a state where we >start to remember the experiences more clearly, yet still; we need >to be able to interpret our experiences into something >understandable while in the physical state as well. Maybe there is a >way we can train ourselves, not so much to fill in the blanks, but >to overlap the data when necessary, rather than interpret the >original data and then disregard what we initially experienced. :) Well Craig, it just seems so difficult. For instance, I've been looking out this week for these "fill in the blank" type of things in real life. I've caught my mind filling in the blanks several times, and then correcting itself .......... I'll walk into my dining room and "see" a black bag on the table, and then within a split second it will "change" into the brown box that it really is. My mind for whatever reason is expecting to see one thing, and has to correct itself because of a false expectation. I think this happens more frequently than we pick up on ... simply because we are so used to making these type of quick adjustments. If this happens so much in real life without us noticing, how can we work with it during OBEs? ###### Message-ID: <3934950E.5928@not-here.net> From: Janice X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Success (Sorta!) (Please share ideas!) References: <391ad722_1@news3.calweb.com> <391DFC60.2AFAD7DA@satway.com.au> <391E2739.10CF@not-here.net> <3927484F.5BCC5DB9@satway.com.au> <3928C49F.5BC2@not-here.net> <392AE42D.DEC1F8BE@netconnect.com.au> <392B50BB.42C2@not-here.net> <3931C570.399557A8@netconnect.com.au> <393212D9.9353A2C9@netconnect.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 20 NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 23:26:50 CDT Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing X-Trace: sv2-D3Gd5c4U+eWhRHSFDLHZyo4vJRVdGBgsAYcdYCfeHUtfVtHnj84ppPjg9iCYRvrN4spwk+pTEny1lrJ!kLx4DprctKxUnk2yJjMOCIbUASg= X-Complaints-To: abuse@GigaNews.Com X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 00:29:02 -0400 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!netnews.com!europa.netcrusader.net!152.163.239.129!portc01.blue.aol.com!nntp2.giganews.com!nntp3.giganews.com!news5.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:43479 Trish wrote: > > I do understand what you mean then. Actually ... this is probably one of > the reasons I sometimes feel very compelled to wake myself up from an OBE > and quickly record what I've just seen. There is still some small lingering > hope that I can accurately record it. Most of the experience can be > recalled, but sometimes there are holes and gaps with strong emotional or > mental undertones that I have no tool to express. I sometimes detect "feeling tones" to certain dream characters that I would be hard pressed to put into words. > I can also see your point about interpreting what we have no knowledge of, > and filling in the blanks. Is there a way we could train our minds *not* to > fill in the blanks? I'm not sure if we can. I suspect that the best you could do is end up with those dream "blank zones" where there are no ordinary visuals or sounds. And without something to engage your attention, these get boring pretty quickly. :) On the other hand, they do highlight how the dream imagery is illusory. ###### Message-ID: <39349708.3050@not-here.net> From: Janice X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Success (Sorta!) (Please share ideas!) References: <391ad722_1@news3.calweb.com> <391DFC60.2AFAD7DA@satway.com.au> <391E2739.10CF@not-here.net> <3927484F.5BCC5DB9@satway.com.au> <3928C49F.5BC2@not-here.net> <392AE42D.DEC1F8BE@netconnect.com.au> <392B50BB.42C2@not-here.net> <3931C570.399557A8@netconnect.com.au> <393212D9.9353A2C9@netconnect.com.au> <3933E2FD.CB3D6EDE@netconnect.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 172 NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 23:35:41 CDT Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing X-Trace: sv2-aC1uONcBQWghmBCOVc+d75MIUvFxwod8NGiNBZyO9xOL+2ZX3hYc8oyJQw7Zx8I/AlMcCuxx7EoraKS!jjiPrRI6WZwSMPX83cSb8a/UGDCU X-Complaints-To: abuse@GigaNews.Com X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 00:37:28 -0400 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newspeer.te.net!news.indigo.ie!diablo.theplanet.net!newsfeed.skycache.com!Cidera!152.163.239.131!portc03.blue.aol.com!nntp2.giganews.com!nntp3.giganews.com!news6.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:43544 Trish wrote: > > Craig Shillington wrote in message <3933E2FD.CB3D6EDE@netconnect.com.au>... > > > > > >Hi Trish, > >> > >> Craig Shillington wrote in message > <393212D9.9353A2C9@netconnect.com.au>... > >> > > >> > > >> >Hi Trish, > >> >> > >> >> (on bottom) > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >> >While OOB, no ... I can only ever discuss with you my perceptions of > >> >> >my OBE's while in a *physical state*, therefore I will ALWAYS be > >> >> >interpreting something based on my physical model. While OOB, my > >> >> >perception of what I sense is *true* to what I am perceiving, the > >> >> >problem lies when conveying the experience while physical, IMO. In > >> >> >this way ... yes, I control my perception of what I *believe* I > >> >> >sensed while OOB; while in a physical state, undermining that which > >> >> >sourced the perception in the first place. > >> >> > > >> >> >> > > How would you distinguish them from simply very, very lifelike > >> >> dreams? > >> >> >> > > I attempt some dream control, but someone here told me that > this > >> >> isn't > >> >> >> > > necessarily a good test, since we may simply have super powers > in > >> >> other > >> >> >> > > realities. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> And I was dubbed a certified astral traveler by this person (Rich > >> West), > >> >> >> BTW. :) > >> >> > > >> >> >Again, I think we all possess these *super powers* anyway, we simply > >> >> >are more able to use them while in these ASC's. > >> >> > > >> >> >> > Well, I don't think we have any extra *powers* in other > realities, > >> >> >> > we just know how to use the powers we have to a greater ability. > We > >> >> >> > are not bound by the everyday rules of physical life. How would I > >> >> >> > distinguish them from very, very lifelike dreams? From my > >> >> >> > experiences with dreams, LD's and OBE's. I just know. When you > >> >> >> > experience something like I did with my soulmate ... it lets you > >> >> >> > know (personally only) that it simply is not a dream. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Not even a psychic or shared dream? > >> >> > > >> >> >If/when you understand how/where we go when we dream, you will > >> >> >understand how I believe we can experience shared dreams and psychic > >> >> >dreams. :) > >> >> > > >> >> >All the best > >> >> >Craig > >> >> > >> >> Sorry. Didn't want to snip. > >> >> > >> >> Craig, I *think* know what you mean. There are times during OBEs that > I > >> >> perceive things that have no known physical equivalent. Like certain > >> colors > >> >> for instance. It makes perfect sense during the OBE, but when I later > >> wake > >> >> up, I can't make the match. All I recall is what I was thinking at > the > >> >> time. > >> > > >> >YES!!!! That's how I feel Trish, only this not only applies to non > >> >physical concepts, IMO, but also to those things physical we have no > >> >knowledge of or even some things that we simply misinterpret all > >> >together. I'll assume you have read my account of the visit with my > >> >soulmate. Point of interest, for me, was the room she was adding on > >> >the house. I perceived this as scaffolding and a pit full of > >> >rubbish, when it was a room with the sub frame up and you had to > >> >step down into it and all the tools and equipment they were using > >> >were scattered on the floor. I have seen rooms with sub frames and I > >> >have seen tools before but I misinterpreted what I had seen and > >> >based what I perceived on something else within my memory model that > >> >suited the perception well. This is why I disregard a lot of the > >> >'see what's on my monitor posts', for this very reason, there will > >> >never be a 100% chance that we can observe and report with 100% > >> >accuracy. This is not an excuse ... this is fact, it's the way the > >> >human mind fills in the blanks. Now what of things we perceive > >> >astrally, that we fully understand while we are astral, yet when we > >> >return to the physical and try to write down our experience and what > >> >we *saw*? It's humanly impossible to do. How do I explain a colour I > >> >have never seen before in the physical? A sound never heard before? > >> >A concept that is simply impossible to convey while physical? I > >> >can't, so I do the next best think and work with what I have stored > >> >up in my physical memory base, to find the closest match *FOR ME*. > >> >That being an important point, because how *I* interpret something, > >> >will most likely be completely different to how you will interpret > >> >it and so we move further and further away from any sort of > >> >verifiable proof at this stage. It's a catch 22 really, even when we > >> >are looking for proof for ourselves, we may inadvertently dismiss > >> >some hits because we have misinterpreted them in such a way as to > >> >cloud the true perception of the experience. Not saying that all > >> >near hits would be hits, just saying that we need to have more of an > >> >understanding as to how we perceive while OOB and how we interpret > >> >our perceptions when in a physical state. Not just those having the > >> >experiences, but also those who would want to test us looking for > >> >some sort of proof. I'll never figure a person who believes that > >> >it's simply a matter of putting a card out of sight somewhere and > >> >getting OOB and looking at the card and confirming that afterwards. > >> >We simply don't see with our physical eyes ... and we don't see what > >> >is physical IMO, so how would this sort of test prove anything? It > >> >can't. And it never will, IMO. > >> > >> I do understand what you mean then. Actually ... this is probably one of > >> the reasons I sometimes feel very compelled to wake myself up from an OBE > >> and quickly record what I've just seen. There is still some small > lingering > >> hope that I can accurately record it. Most of the experience can be > >> recalled, but sometimes there are holes and gaps with strong emotional or > >> mental undertones that I have no tool to express. > > > >I sometimes wonder ... if what we think we have perceived to be > >correct, actually isn't accurate. I guess there is no way to know > >this for sure. I also need to stress a point, that while I am OOB, > >all these things I don't understand or have no knowledge of while > >physical, make perfect sense while in the state of being OOB. While > >I am having the experience, it all makes perfect sense to me, it's > >when I come back here .. it seems as if something is missing, there > >are pieces of the jigsaw that don't quite fit right anymore. > > > >> I can also see your point about interpreting what we have no knowledge > of, > >> and filling in the blanks. Is there a way we could train our minds *not* > to > >> fill in the blanks? I'm not sure if we can. > > > >If you mean, train our minds to leave the data as it is represented > >while having the experience ... I would guess if we could learn to > >meditate more deeply, we may be able to get to a state where we > >start to remember the experiences more clearly, yet still; we need > >to be able to interpret our experiences into something > >understandable while in the physical state as well. Maybe there is a > >way we can train ourselves, not so much to fill in the blanks, but > >to overlap the data when necessary, rather than interpret the > >original data and then disregard what we initially experienced. :) > > Well Craig, it just seems so difficult. For instance, I've been looking out > this week for these "fill in the blank" type of things in real life. I've > caught my mind filling in the blanks several times, and then correcting > itself .......... I'll walk into my dining room and "see" a black bag on > the table, and then within a split second it will "change" into the brown > box that it really is. My mind for whatever reason is expecting to see one > thing, and has to correct itself because of a false expectation. > > I think this happens more frequently than we pick up on ... simply because > we are so used to making these type of quick adjustments. If this happens > so much in real life without us noticing, how can we work with it during > OBEs? Ah, yes - definitely a mismatch between model and reality, and such things are common indeed. Ever see something lying in the street that looks like a dead animal, but then when you get close it turns out to be just a rag or something? Or misread a sign, then read it again and laugh at what you had originally thought it said? Same perceptual deal. Luckily, in waking reality there is an underlying stability that enables us to correct our misperceptions. Once we hit on the correct interpretation, things stop morphing. In dreams, there is no such underlying stability, and things can go on morphing endlessly. The only way I can think of offhand to work with it is to use the inherent instability of dreams to create what you want. ###### Message-ID: <3934A48D.EDF@not-here.net> From: Janice X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Success (Sorta!) (Please share ideas!) References: <391ad722_1@news3.calweb.com> <391DFC60.2AFAD7DA@satway.com.au> <391E2739.10CF@not-here.net> <3927484F.5BCC5DB9@satway.com.au> <3928C49F.5BC2@not-here.net> <392AE42D.DEC1F8BE@netconnect.com.au> <392B50BB.42C2@not-here.net> <3931C570.399557A8@netconnect.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 320 NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 00:33:00 CDT Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing X-Trace: sv2-qP5+hbVgFBDNjiG+UsuvYeY33QzzZOAmcCER/IMeNykURix9ra3vGqjvBgz+yoscXIoJgZWxoaNPw5b!Xa9YnTF76ptgug+mYMKAPYkE9jAX X-Complaints-To: abuse@GigaNews.Com X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 01:35:09 -0400 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!korova.insync.net!solomon.io.com!nntp.giganews.com!nntp3.giganews.com!news5.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:43480 Craig Shillington wrote: > > > > > How do you find you *get up*? For me, it's not a matter of > > > > > visualizing it, it's more of an instinctive *movement* for want of a > > > > > better word. It seems when I find myself in the vibes, knowing I can > > > > > separate, I will myself OOB more than anything. No thought of moving > > > > > body parts or anything, more thought on getting away from the > > > > > physical. > > > > > > > > I think the best I can describe it is "acting as if I can move" - > > > > behaving just as if I were getting out of bed or off the couch in the > > > > waking world, only it's a mental act, not a physical act. > > > > > > So you basically move physically within your mind? That's not what I > > > do at all. Funny the amount of different methods that various people > > > use to achieve pretty well the same thing. :) Are you still in SP at > > > this stage? Yes, my body is in SP. I'll notice that I can't move, or that I'm not moving right - I'll reach over for something then realize, hey, that's not my real arm moving. Then I have to ignore the paralysis and get up mentally. > > > When I am in the vibes (the times when I can most easily > > > separate) I find I am also in SP at the same time. Any sort of > > > physical movement at this stage seems near impossible and any > > > thought of physical movement seems to bring me out of the state and > > > awake in the physical out of SP. Right, I can't move physically, and I have to try to ignore my physical body and work solely with the mental one. > > Yes, I'm in sleep paralysis when I do this. But I don't conceive of it > > as physical motion; I know my real body ain't movin', and I don't try to > > move it, just the mental version. It's similar to my earlier technique > > of just imagining getting up and walking away until appropriate > > perceptions develop around me, but a little more active. > > When I first started trying to have OBE's, I found myself doing much > the same thing to try to get *out*. Using a mental version of > getting up and moving around. I soon discovered that this simply is > too much to do, or the wrong way about going around it ... for me > anyway. I can't explain how I separate, it almost seems like an > instinctive thing for me now, but there is no thought of doing such > things like pushing myself onto my hands and turning my body and > standing etc. It's more a matter of moving my consciousness to > another point of view and finding myself there. In this way, I > *push* myself out, rather than stand or float out. It seems to be a > great effort for me at times to push out too. Maybe using a > visualization of *getting up* could work for me also, but my thought > is that this may place me in a LD rather than an OBE at times, being > more of a *physical* type separation. MAybe when we first begin > feeling the sensations of an alternate POV, our subconscious mind > fills in the blanks between where our physical mind is and where our > POV is, by giving us the sensation (physical) of actually moving to > the POV, thus the term OBE was started, as it seemed like we were > somehow physically moving away from our physical body due to our > subconscious *filling in the blanks*. Yes, I think it's something like that. > > Dreaming to me is any non-waking perceptual experience. If my awareness > > level is low and I think that everything is actually happening in waking > > life, then I call them nonlucid dreams. If my awareness level is high > > and I know I'm not really in the waking world while I'm having them, > > then I call them lucid dreams (with a few subtypes depending on the > > extent and nature of this lucidity). When a lucid dream includes > > perceptions and sensations that make it seem as if I am leaving the body > > behind, then I call them OBEs. But at the outermost level I think of > > them all as dreams. > > But you still believe you can have simple LD's of OBE's, no? I can have semilucid dreams of OBEs, where my awareness level just isn't that great. If my awareness level is high and there's that "opening scene" of being aware of my sleeping body in bed and having to ditch that perception, then I call the result an OBE, even though I think of it as a subtype of lucid dream. > What > sort of things would you have to take into consideration for > determining the difference between a fair dinkim OBE and a dreamed > one? For me this would include trying to find verifiable evidence to > suggest I was at least interacting with the energy from the physical > and not simply making the LD seem like an OBE. If you read my post > about my visit to my soulmate, you'll know what I mean by this. You mean a real fair dinkum OBE, as opposed to a lucid dream OBE? Yeah, I'd like to see indications that something was being picked up from physical reality that I couldn't otherwise know. > What > sorts of things did you do to determine that your OBE's where simply > heightened LD's? I did things like see if I could influence the environment with my thoughts (I could, although the type of control involved is a little more subtle than what is often possible in regular lucid dreams); go to visit nearby places during the OBE then check up on the place in reality for comparison (I always got a lot wrong); see what my parents and cats were doing in the OBE then get up and check (I would be wrong); etc. > What are your thoughts on what dreams are ... or > can you conclude that dreams, LD's and your OBE type LD's all take > place within your physical brain? I think dreaming is the ordinary process of perception construction, utilizing a different data set than usual. In waking life we rely chiefly on sensory input when building perceptions; in dreams we use whatever else we can get our "hands" on, including thoughts, emotions, memories, habits, and so on. Just possibly (all a big hypothetical for me) when dreaming we can also sometimes draw on nonphysical/psychic senses if such things exist. I do think all the work is done in the brain even if we can sometimes "tune in" to hypothetical nonphysical realms. We would have to compare what we sense to the existing data in our brains in order to put together a representation that makes sense to us. > > > When I simply dream, I have no control over what is happening and I > > > don't even recognize the fact that I am dreaming. The dream ... is > > > my reality while I am having it. I know not that I have a physical > > > body laying in bed dreaming. > > > > We're definitely in agreement on that one. > > Well, lol, so would most people. :) That's pretty clear cut really. > Why is it that dreams are experiences that are subjectively > individual, yet no one seems to have any difficulty believing that > others do it? There are some pretty common characteristics and themes to dreams, so we should be able to recognize if someone else is describing a dream. > > > > > When I am OOB, I am fully aware that I have a physical body > > > laying in bed asleep, I am still fully aware, more so than what I am > > > within a LD, I can control a lot of aspects of the experience, IE. > > > where I want to go, what I want to do, but I have little control > > > over a lot of things that are happening around me. In this way, I > > > believe that I am not in a dream for the sake that I don't have this > > > control yet seem to be even more aware of my state than within a LD. > > > > How do you try to control them? I also find that the environment can be > > more stable and realistic in lucid dreams that I enter consciously from > > waking (whether using OBE or hypnagogic entry), and direct effort of > > will doesn't seem quite as effective as it does in some more typical > > lucid dreams, but I can still manage to exert some kind of control over > > it. For instance, I might wish for a horse to ride, and one doesn't > > appear instantly, but after a minute I start seeing them nearby. Or I > > may suggest to myself that I will meet the person I want to meet after > > going into a certain building, and then I do. > > By control, I mean ... I have the same sorts of control as I do in a > LD ... where I want to go, who I want to see, if I want to come back > to my physical body. But, a big difference is, that while in a LD > ... having this control seems a lot easier, as it is an experience > made up of pure thought. With OBE's, the experience is not all of my > own making, there seems to be elements of OBE's that originate not > from within me and not from within anyone else. In this way, it can > be difficult to have the same control over the experience. Yes, I > can still manifest objects from my own thoughts, but I believe that > other perceived things are there, not from my own thoughts which > have external influences, either from others OOB at the time, or > from objects within the physical whose *energy* has an influence in > the astral. Why could I see a tree when I visited my soulmate ... > which wasn't there anymore? Because I believe all physical objects > extend an energy which is perceivable in the astral, so that even > after (or before) the object is there in the physical ... it's > energy can be perceived astrally as if the object was there in the > physical. In this way, I perceived a tree there, at her house ... > which had in fact been cut down a year beforehand. Another possibility, though, if we consider the "psychic" possibility, is that you were tapping into your soul mate's *memories* of the tree. > Again, this is > just based on my theory on how we *see* while we are astral. Ever > seen those pictures of leaves using that special photography where > you can see the *aura* around the leaf? This is the energy I am > talking about. Kirlian photography? If I remember right that "aura" isn't considered to be energy, but I forget what the going scientific theory on it is. Hey, where's Haunt-dude? He has played with that stuff, and could probably tell us. > What if you took the leaf away and took a photo > again? Or, have you even seen those photos of airforce bases, where > the *heat* from aircraft can still be seen where they stood warming > up, even though the aircraft are long gone? What if you weren't > quite sure what you were looking at at the time? You would swear you > were looking down on aircraft sitting on the ground, even though > there were no aircraft there. Infrared photography? Yeah, OK, heat is energy. :) > > I would consider different possibilities. If it was a really familiar > > scene and there was nothing special about anything I saw then I would > > probably conclude that I just had tapped into a wonderfully accurate > > memory map while dreaming. If I noticed things during the OBE that I > > later verified as genuine but would not likely have had in my memory or > > been able to guess from other cues, then I might wonder if it was indeed > > a literal OBE at last, but I would be more inclined to wonder if I had > > had some sort of psychic experience and was incorporating clairvoyant > > perceptions into my dream construction. > > So .... where would your clairvoyance originate from, I mean, where > would you gather your information from for your vision of > clairvoyance? I don't know how it would work. First I'd have to have a number of such experiences before I concerned myself much with how they work. :) One possibility I've seen floated around is that there is a universal consciousness field and people can access information from other points in the field, other people's individual consciousnesses. I've also seen claims that "guides" can pass this information to people. > > > I > > > think because of my beliefs and theories about how we sense, or > > > where we are during an OBE, brings me to believe that even though > > > there are *dreamsign* type visuals within the experience ... it > > > still isn't dreaming 'for me'. When does reality blur to dream, and > > > dream blur to alternate reality? With your theory, there is only > > > reality as we know it ... and dreams ... afaics anyway. :) > > > > No, my theory doesn't completely rule out the possibility of alternate > > realities. It just says that if if they do exist and we somehow tuned > > into them while dreaming we would tend to perceive them with subjective > > distortions because of the "noise" from the dreaming brain. > > And this is still how I perceive a lot of my OBE's too. There are so > many elements that make up my *real* OBE's that WILL be subjective > to my own experience here in the physical, which will determine how > I perceive a great amount of the information gathered by me while > OOB. If I experience something while OOB, which I have no *memory > model* of in the physical ... when I return to the physical and > convey to others what I have experienced, my experience while > physical will be based purely on my physical memory model only. Gotcha. > > > Maybe, when I think of it, my OBE's are > > > *dreamlike* in that I don't actually *see* what I sense while OOB, > > > my mind interprets my astral senses into physical form, I guess you > > > could say, my mind gives me the imagery of what I am experiencing > > > based on data from the physical that I have experienced. In this way > > > I guess my visuals could be called dreams, as my mind is producing > > > them, but the experience itself still isn't a dream for me. :) It is > > > a real *non physical* experience, IMO. > > > > OK, I think I can grok that. You believe you're picking up some sort of > > nonphysical data and your mind weaves it into a dream scene for you. > > That's still in line with the way I believe dreams are created; you just > > believe in a source of input for dream perception construction that I > > don't presently believe in, but can at least imagine. :) > > Ahhhhh, at least you understand what I am saying Janice. :) Yes, > constructing visuals using known memories for things we have never > experienced before. Does that make it a dream ... I don't think so. It does to me. :) The experience itself is still comprised of subjective interpretations, even if there is some underlying nonphysical reality to it. > It's just a way for us to try to remember something that we have no > idea of what it is. Take a sentence, and put a heap of blanks in it. > Now ask people to fill it in. Straight away people will start > filling in the blanks based on things they have heard before, or > based on something that sits right with them. How many different > combinations of the one sentence do you think we would come up with? > Yet, in the start it was only one known and definite sentence. Which not a one of them saw, so their only experience of it is a complete subjective distortion. > > So even if you > > did manage to exert control over an OBE scene, you might conclude that > > you were controlling your perception of it, but not the underlying > > source of the perception, right? > > While OOB, no ... I can only ever discuss with you my perceptions of > my OBE's while in a *physical state*, therefore I will ALWAYS be > interpreting something based on my physical model. While OOB, my > perception of what I sense is *true* to what I am perceiving, the > problem lies when conveying the experience while physical, IMO. In > this way ... yes, I control my perception of what I *believe* I > sensed while OOB; while in a physical state, undermining that which > sourced the perception in the first place. I understand that in your waking translation you would be introducing distortions, but how can you be sure you were perceiving it properly in the first place, while you were OBE? We can misperceive things in waking life, so why not in OBEs? > > Again, I think we all possess these *super powers* anyway, we simply > are more able to use them while in these ASC's. You mean people can fly, and walk through walls, and conjure things where you come from? Hey, I wanna take a vacation Down Under! :) > > > Well, I don't think we have any extra *powers* in other realities, > > > we just know how to use the powers we have to a greater ability. We > > > are not bound by the everyday rules of physical life. How would I > > > distinguish them from very, very lifelike dreams? From my > > > experiences with dreams, LD's and OBE's. I just know. When you > > > experience something like I did with my soulmate ... it lets you > > > know (personally only) that it simply is not a dream. > > > > Not even a psychic or shared dream? > > If/when you understand how/where we go when we dream, you will > understand how I believe we can experience shared dreams and psychic > dreams. :) Hey, now that's evasive. :) Do you think there's a difference between shared/psychic dreams and joint OBEs or not? ###### From: Craig Shillington Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Success (Sorta!) (Please share ideas!) Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 18:23:45 +1000 Organization: De Ja Vous Lines: 94 Message-ID: <3934CC11.35C37DB9@netconnect.com.au> References: <391ad722_1@news3.calweb.com> <391DFC60.2AFAD7DA@satway.com.au> <391E2739.10CF@not-here.net> <3927484F.5BCC5DB9@satway.com.au> <3928C49F.5BC2@not-here.net> <392AE42D.DEC1F8BE@netconnect.com.au> <392B50BB.42C2@not-here.net> <3931C570.399557A8@netconnect.com.au> <393212D9.9353A2C9@netconnect.com.au> <3933E2FD.CB3D6EDE@netconnect.com.au> NNTP-Posting-Host: hor-as1-p23.netconnect.net.au (203.87.38.23) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 959766067 2355177 203.87.38.23 (16 [27978]) X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!newsfeedZ.netscum.dQ!netscum.int!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!hor-as1-p23.netconnect.net.AU!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:43511 Hi Trish, > >I sometimes wonder ... if what we think we have perceived to be > >correct, actually isn't accurate. I guess there is no way to know > >this for sure. I also need to stress a point, that while I am OOB, > >all these things I don't understand or have no knowledge of while > >physical, make perfect sense while in the state of being OOB. While > >I am having the experience, it all makes perfect sense to me, it's > >when I come back here .. it seems as if something is missing, there > >are pieces of the jigsaw that don't quite fit right anymore. > > > >> I can also see your point about interpreting what we have no knowledge > of, > >> and filling in the blanks. Is there a way we could train our minds *not* > to > >> fill in the blanks? I'm not sure if we can. > > > >If you mean, train our minds to leave the data as it is represented > >while having the experience ... I would guess if we could learn to > >meditate more deeply, we may be able to get to a state where we > >start to remember the experiences more clearly, yet still; we need > >to be able to interpret our experiences into something > >understandable while in the physical state as well. Maybe there is a > >way we can train ourselves, not so much to fill in the blanks, but > >to overlap the data when necessary, rather than interpret the > >original data and then disregard what we initially experienced. :) > > Well Craig, it just seems so difficult. For instance, I've been looking out > this week for these "fill in the blank" type of things in real life. I've > caught my mind filling in the blanks several times, and then correcting > itself .......... I'll walk into my dining room and "see" a black bag on > the table, and then within a split second it will "change" into the brown > box that it really is. My mind for whatever reason is expecting to see one > thing, and has to correct itself because of a false expectation. Ahhhhh, but do you find for the most part that the reason you look again, and find what you were really looking at is different now, is because something inside you says 'Hangon, that's just not right!'. I sometimes see things this way, but realize it just doesn't seem right and take a really good look before I realize what it is I am actually looking at. This happens to me quite a bit, I always guessed it was laziness on my behalf. ;) The point I'm trying to make is this ... something inside me tells me that what I have perceived isn't a correct perception of what is there, I need to look more closely and see what it is. When we get OOB and experience something that we cannot explain while physical ... it's the same sort of feeling for me, even though I am representing the perception from my experience as closely as I possibly can in physical terms, something inside me just knows I need to look more closely. I would be interested if Bart recalls anything similar to this type of feeling when he had his experience with the intruders. Sometimes, even when we know what we have perceived isn't what was experienced, we still fail to understand what the message is behind our experiences. And sadly, IMO, we can't understand most of the time unless we are in these ASC's. Being physical simply does have it's limitations. So ... just how do we begin to move more deeply as beings and start to incorporate other states within this physical one? > I think this happens more frequently than we pick up on ... simply because > we are so used to making these type of quick adjustments. If this happens > so much in real life without us noticing, how can we work with it during > OBEs? I guess, even though I usually get the feeling something is odd about my perception, it would be wrong for me to assume that I pick up on this all the time. I wonder how many times we see things differently and never even realize. My guess is we do it quite a bit, seeing as our eyes tend to be sharply focused only in a small area in the middle of our line of sight and we need to scan over objects and remember the details, thus filling in the blanks as we go. I don't feel we need to work on this during OBE's themselves though, my thoughts are that we gather raw data during our OBE's which is quite unmistakable .. it's back here in the physical that we need to work on either continuing to try to be more in touch with our other ASC's, or simply realize that it is impossible for us, for example, to describe a colour that can't be seen with human eyes in physical terms and just do the best we can with what we have knowledge of while physical. It's a poor representation of our experiences, but what do we expect when defining non physical things in physical terms. All the best Craig -- The sure way to make a thing impossible- -is to think it so. --- Franklin -- ###### From: Craig Shillington Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Success (Sorta!) (Please share ideas!) Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 18:34:32 +1000 Organization: De Ja Vous Lines: 200 Message-ID: <3934CE98.52082D87@netconnect.com.au> References: <391ad722_1@news3.calweb.com> <391DFC60.2AFAD7DA@satway.com.au> <391E2739.10CF@not-here.net> <3927484F.5BCC5DB9@satway.com.au> <3928C49F.5BC2@not-here.net> <392AE42D.DEC1F8BE@netconnect.com.au> <392B50BB.42C2@not-here.net> <3931C570.399557A8@netconnect.com.au> <393212D9.9353A2C9@netconnect.com.au> <3933E2FD.CB3D6EDE@netconnect.com.au> <39349708.3050@not-here.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: hor-as1-p23.netconnect.net.au (203.87.38.23) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 959766071 2355177 203.87.38.23 (16 [27978]) X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!newsfeedZ.netscum.dQ!netscum.int!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!hor-as1-p23.netconnect.net.AU!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:43509 Hi Janice, > > Trish wrote: > > > > Craig Shillington wrote in message <3933E2FD.CB3D6EDE@netconnect.com.au>... > > > > > > > > >Hi Trish, > > >> > > >> Craig Shillington wrote in message > > <393212D9.9353A2C9@netconnect.com.au>... > > >> > > > >> > > > >> >Hi Trish, > > >> >> > > >> >> (on bottom) > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> >> >While OOB, no ... I can only ever discuss with you my perceptions of > > >> >> >my OBE's while in a *physical state*, therefore I will ALWAYS be > > >> >> >interpreting something based on my physical model. While OOB, my > > >> >> >perception of what I sense is *true* to what I am perceiving, the > > >> >> >problem lies when conveying the experience while physical, IMO. In > > >> >> >this way ... yes, I control my perception of what I *believe* I > > >> >> >sensed while OOB; while in a physical state, undermining that which > > >> >> >sourced the perception in the first place. > > >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > How would you distinguish them from simply very, very lifelike > > >> >> dreams? > > >> >> >> > > I attempt some dream control, but someone here told me that > > this > > >> >> isn't > > >> >> >> > > necessarily a good test, since we may simply have super powers > > in > > >> >> other > > >> >> >> > > realities. > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> And I was dubbed a certified astral traveler by this person (Rich > > >> West), > > >> >> >> BTW. :) > > >> >> > > > >> >> >Again, I think we all possess these *super powers* anyway, we simply > > >> >> >are more able to use them while in these ASC's. > > >> >> > > > >> >> >> > Well, I don't think we have any extra *powers* in other > > realities, > > >> >> >> > we just know how to use the powers we have to a greater ability. > > We > > >> >> >> > are not bound by the everyday rules of physical life. How would I > > >> >> >> > distinguish them from very, very lifelike dreams? From my > > >> >> >> > experiences with dreams, LD's and OBE's. I just know. When you > > >> >> >> > experience something like I did with my soulmate ... it lets you > > >> >> >> > know (personally only) that it simply is not a dream. > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> Not even a psychic or shared dream? > > >> >> > > > >> >> >If/when you understand how/where we go when we dream, you will > > >> >> >understand how I believe we can experience shared dreams and psychic > > >> >> >dreams. :) > > >> >> > > > >> >> >All the best > > >> >> >Craig > > >> >> > > >> >> Sorry. Didn't want to snip. > > >> >> > > >> >> Craig, I *think* know what you mean. There are times during OBEs that > > I > > >> >> perceive things that have no known physical equivalent. Like certain > > >> colors > > >> >> for instance. It makes perfect sense during the OBE, but when I later > > >> wake > > >> >> up, I can't make the match. All I recall is what I was thinking at > > the > > >> >> time. > > >> > > > >> >YES!!!! That's how I feel Trish, only this not only applies to non > > >> >physical concepts, IMO, but also to those things physical we have no > > >> >knowledge of or even some things that we simply misinterpret all > > >> >together. I'll assume you have read my account of the visit with my > > >> >soulmate. Point of interest, for me, was the room she was adding on > > >> >the house. I perceived this as scaffolding and a pit full of > > >> >rubbish, when it was a room with the sub frame up and you had to > > >> >step down into it and all the tools and equipment they were using > > >> >were scattered on the floor. I have seen rooms with sub frames and I > > >> >have seen tools before but I misinterpreted what I had seen and > > >> >based what I perceived on something else within my memory model that > > >> >suited the perception well. This is why I disregard a lot of the > > >> >'see what's on my monitor posts', for this very reason, there will > > >> >never be a 100% chance that we can observe and report with 100% > > >> >accuracy. This is not an excuse ... this is fact, it's the way the > > >> >human mind fills in the blanks. Now what of things we perceive > > >> >astrally, that we fully understand while we are astral, yet when we > > >> >return to the physical and try to write down our experience and what > > >> >we *saw*? It's humanly impossible to do. How do I explain a colour I > > >> >have never seen before in the physical? A sound never heard before? > > >> >A concept that is simply impossible to convey while physical? I > > >> >can't, so I do the next best think and work with what I have stored > > >> >up in my physical memory base, to find the closest match *FOR ME*. > > >> >That being an important point, because how *I* interpret something, > > >> >will most likely be completely different to how you will interpret > > >> >it and so we move further and further away from any sort of > > >> >verifiable proof at this stage. It's a catch 22 really, even when we > > >> >are looking for proof for ourselves, we may inadvertently dismiss > > >> >some hits because we have misinterpreted them in such a way as to > > >> >cloud the true perception of the experience. Not saying that all > > >> >near hits would be hits, just saying that we need to have more of an > > >> >understanding as to how we perceive while OOB and how we interpret > > >> >our perceptions when in a physical state. Not just those having the > > >> >experiences, but also those who would want to test us looking for > > >> >some sort of proof. I'll never figure a person who believes that > > >> >it's simply a matter of putting a card out of sight somewhere and > > >> >getting OOB and looking at the card and confirming that afterwards. > > >> >We simply don't see with our physical eyes ... and we don't see what > > >> >is physical IMO, so how would this sort of test prove anything? It > > >> >can't. And it never will, IMO. > > >> > > >> I do understand what you mean then. Actually ... this is probably one of > > >> the reasons I sometimes feel very compelled to wake myself up from an OBE > > >> and quickly record what I've just seen. There is still some small > > lingering > > >> hope that I can accurately record it. Most of the experience can be > > >> recalled, but sometimes there are holes and gaps with strong emotional or > > >> mental undertones that I have no tool to express. > > > > > >I sometimes wonder ... if what we think we have perceived to be > > >correct, actually isn't accurate. I guess there is no way to know > > >this for sure. I also need to stress a point, that while I am OOB, > > >all these things I don't understand or have no knowledge of while > > >physical, make perfect sense while in the state of being OOB. While > > >I am having the experience, it all makes perfect sense to me, it's > > >when I come back here .. it seems as if something is missing, there > > >are pieces of the jigsaw that don't quite fit right anymore. > > > > > >> I can also see your point about interpreting what we have no knowledge > > of, > > >> and filling in the blanks. Is there a way we could train our minds *not* > > to > > >> fill in the blanks? I'm not sure if we can. > > > > > >If you mean, train our minds to leave the data as it is represented > > >while having the experience ... I would guess if we could learn to > > >meditate more deeply, we may be able to get to a state where we > > >start to remember the experiences more clearly, yet still; we need > > >to be able to interpret our experiences into something > > >understandable while in the physical state as well. Maybe there is a > > >way we can train ourselves, not so much to fill in the blanks, but > > >to overlap the data when necessary, rather than interpret the > > >original data and then disregard what we initially experienced. :) > > > > Well Craig, it just seems so difficult. For instance, I've been looking out > > this week for these "fill in the blank" type of things in real life. I've > > caught my mind filling in the blanks several times, and then correcting > > itself .......... I'll walk into my dining room and "see" a black bag on > > the table, and then within a split second it will "change" into the brown > > box that it really is. My mind for whatever reason is expecting to see one > > thing, and has to correct itself because of a false expectation. > > > > I think this happens more frequently than we pick up on ... simply because > > we are so used to making these type of quick adjustments. If this happens > > so much in real life without us noticing, how can we work with it during > > OBEs? > > Ah, yes - definitely a mismatch between model and reality, and such > things are common indeed. Ever see something lying in the street that > looks like a dead animal, but then when you get close it turns out to be > just a rag or something? Or misread a sign, then read it again and > laugh at what you had originally thought it said? Same perceptual > deal. Luckily, in waking reality there is an underlying stability that > enables us to correct our misperceptions. Once we hit on the correct > interpretation, things stop morphing. In dreams, there is no such > underlying stability, and things can go on morphing endlessly. The only > way I can think of offhand to work with it is to use the inherent > instability of dreams to create what you want. So, what are your thoughts on such tests as monitor tests, or placing objects in closed boxes etc.? Assuming that you could believe our consciousness could have a way to perceive these things or their non physical counterparts, would you expect a test like this to be proof that people can get *OOB*? If our perception of the object is blurred and we wrongly report what we have seen, this IMO doesn't prove that we didn't see the actual object (or it's non physical representation). In the same way, there is more than a good chance that what some may report seeing could also be obscurely looked upon as being a misrepresentation too. In understanding this, I think a lot more people would stop inducing these sorts of tests upon us and start looking more towards hits within the data gathered between experimenters who either both meet OOB, or one OOB meets the other who is physical and describes locations etc. All the best Craig -- The sure way to make a thing impossible- -is to think it so. --- Franklin -- ###### Message-ID: <3935C48F.1860@not-here.net> From: Janice X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Success (Sorta!) (Please share ideas!) References: <391ad722_1@news3.calweb.com> <391DFC60.2AFAD7DA@satway.com.au> <391E2739.10CF@not-here.net> <3927484F.5BCC5DB9@satway.com.au> <3928C49F.5BC2@not-here.net> <392AE42D.DEC1F8BE@netconnect.com.au> <392B50BB.42C2@not-here.net> <3931C570.399557A8@netconnect.com.au> <393212D9.9353A2C9@netconnect.com.au> <3933E2FD.CB3D6EDE@netconnect.com.au> <39349708.3050@not-here.net> <3934CE98.52082D87@netconnect.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 39 NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 21:02:10 CDT Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing X-Trace: sv2-3pnFrz/npNYFavobAXX6vyagBqsRv8Y7XmAze5XK8WDVDP0rHSdpZQmM896rrXBw2/IWddWI75tlpkv!GX5XPaz41WDBWVNKpeFJF82864g= X-Complaints-To: abuse@GigaNews.Com X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 22:03:59 -0400 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!netnews.com!europa.netcrusader.net!152.163.239.131!portc03.blue.aol.com!nntp2.giganews.com!nntp3.giganews.com!news6.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:43549 Craig Shillington wrote: {snip} > So, what are your thoughts on such tests as monitor tests, or > placing objects in closed boxes etc.? I can't even figure out how anyone is supposed to locate the monitor. :) I would think you'd need at least a general idea of where the person lives in order to home in on them. I don't remember Dr. Price or Phil ever saying where they live, but I suppose they may have. > Assuming that you could > believe our consciousness could have a way to perceive these things > or their non physical counterparts, would you expect a test like > this to be proof that people can get *OOB*? It depends. If the test only has minimal controls, and you've ruled out chance, cheating, and collusion as the basis for any successes, then I think the next thing I personally would consider is some sort of telepathy. To rule that out I guess you'd need a test where even the experimenter doesn't know what the target is. > If our perception of the > object is blurred and we wrongly report what we have seen, this IMO > doesn't prove that we didn't see the actual object (or it's non > physical representation). In the same way, there is more than a good > chance that what some may report seeing could also be obscurely > looked upon as being a misrepresentation too. In understanding this, > I think a lot more people would stop inducing these sorts of tests > upon us and start looking more towards hits within the data gathered > between experimenters who either both meet OOB, or one OOB meets the > other who is physical and describes locations etc. I've said a few times now that I think that, if they do exist, nonphysical perceptions percolating into dreams would probably tend to be subjectively distorted, considering that *physical* perceptions so often are (alarm clocks become telephones, etc.). So yes, it could be a real problem. ###### From: Craig Shillington Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Success (Sorta!) (Please share ideas!) Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 20:39:30 +1000 Organization: De Ja Vous Lines: 45 Message-ID: <39363D62.67628AA7@netconnect.com.au> References: <391ad722_1@news3.calweb.com> <391DFC60.2AFAD7DA@satway.com.au> <391E2739.10CF@not-here.net> <3927484F.5BCC5DB9@satway.com.au> <3928C49F.5BC2@not-here.net> <392AE42D.DEC1F8BE@netconnect.com.au> <392B50BB.42C2@not-here.net> <3931C570.399557A8@netconnect.com.au> <393212D9.9353A2C9@netconnect.com.au> <3933E2FD.CB3D6EDE@netconnect.com.au> <39349708.3050@not-here.net> <3934CE98.52082D87@netconnect.com.au> <3935C48F.1860@not-here.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: hor-as1-p52.netconnect.net.au (203.87.38.52) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 959859562 2505259 203.87.38.52 (16 [27978]) X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!hor-as1-p52.netconnect.net.AU!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:43587 Hi Janice, > > Craig Shillington wrote: > > {snip} > > > So, what are your thoughts on such tests as monitor tests, or > > placing objects in closed boxes etc.? > > I can't even figure out how anyone is supposed to locate the monitor. > :) I would think you'd need at least a general idea of where the person > lives in order to home in on them. I don't remember Dr. Price or Phil > ever saying where they live, but I suppose they may have. I can understand what you are saying. How can you find someone if you don't know where they are? But that only works in a physical sense Janice. Of cause, when physical, if we want to go somewhere, we need direction to get there, direction being physical. What if you had a link to someone though, what if simply thinking about an aspect of a persons personality, trying to link with them emotionally, could give you the equivalent of direction in a non physical sense. When I visited my soulmate, all I knew was where she lived, the State. When I made the shift to her, I focused on my feelings for her and the state she lived in. I don't even believe I needed to worry about the state, but I did it anyway. I believe I found her because of the emotional link I have with her and that is how I knew where to find her. For me it was an instantaneous shift, I was somewhere and thought of her and I was there. Some people do find there way in a physical sense though, that is, they still *fly* following familiar landmarks etc. but I personally don't believe this to be necessary. I think this is just a part of peoples belief systems. All the best Craig -- The sure way to make a thing impossible- -is to think it so. --- Franklin -- ###### From: Craig Shillington Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Success (Sorta!) (Please share ideas!) Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 21:33:19 +1000 Organization: De Ja Vous Lines: 350 Message-ID: <393649FF.47E83EFE@netconnect.com.au> References: <391ad722_1@news3.calweb.com> <391DFC60.2AFAD7DA@satway.com.au> <391E2739.10CF@not-here.net> <3927484F.5BCC5DB9@satway.com.au> <3928C49F.5BC2@not-here.net> <392AE42D.DEC1F8BE@netconnect.com.au> <392B50BB.42C2@not-here.net> <3931C570.399557A8@netconnect.com.au> <3934A48D.EDF@not-here.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: hor-as1-p52.netconnect.net.au (203.87.38.52) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 959859567 2505259 203.87.38.52 (16 [27978]) X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news-ber1.dfn.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!hor-as1-p52.netconnect.net.AU!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:43591 Hi Janice, > > What > > sort of things would you have to take into consideration for > > determining the difference between a fair dinkim OBE and a dreamed > > one? For me this would include trying to find verifiable evidence to > > suggest I was at least interacting with the energy from the physical > > and not simply making the LD seem like an OBE. If you read my post > > about my visit to my soulmate, you'll know what I mean by this. > > You mean a real fair dinkum OBE, as opposed to a lucid dream OBE? Yeah, > I'd like to see indications that something was being picked up from > physical reality that I couldn't otherwise know. > > > What > > sorts of things did you do to determine that your OBE's where simply > > heightened LD's? > > I did things like see if I could influence the environment with my > thoughts (I could, although the type of control involved is a little > more subtle than what is often possible in regular lucid dreams); go to > visit nearby places during the OBE then check up on the place in reality > for comparison (I always got a lot wrong); see what my parents and cats > were doing in the OBE then get up and check (I would be wrong); etc. Time and space are physical concepts, so I never expect these to be reliable during an OBE. In saying that, I am referring to your assumption that checking on locations you have visited and finding differences during an OBE, rules that experience out as an OBE for you. I guess, in the end I can't tell *you* what you are experiencing, I just don't go on clues that would tell me because I saw something OOB and it's not the same in the physical, that it wasn't an OBE. I'm not saying that you can't have a real time OBE, I believe that perception during an OBE is related to what we want to *see* rather than what is actually happening in real time in the physical. I believe while we are in an OBE state, we can shift our awareness through time to sense any time we so choose. This is something I want to experiment a lot more with though. What if we could see forward and backward in time, simply because time is not a constant while in the OOB state? Not actually shift in time, but shift our awareness of time, or what we sense during the time we want to sense things from. Now, if we are in an OOB state and don't even realize we are doing this, would that not confuse us? Seeing objects that simply are not there in real time in the physical, thus we'd assume we weren't actually visiting those locations, simply because at this time, those objects aren't there. > > What are your thoughts on what dreams are ... or > > can you conclude that dreams, LD's and your OBE type LD's all take > > place within your physical brain? > > I think dreaming is the ordinary process of perception construction, > utilizing a different data set than usual. In waking life we rely > chiefly on sensory input when building perceptions; in dreams we use > whatever else we can get our "hands" on, including thoughts, emotions, > memories, habits, and so on. Just possibly (all a big hypothetical for > me) when dreaming we can also sometimes draw on nonphysical/psychic > senses if such things exist. I do think all the work is done in the > brain even if we can sometimes "tune in" to hypothetical nonphysical > realms. We would have to compare what we sense to the existing data in > our brains in order to put together a representation that makes sense to > us. > > > > > When I simply dream, I have no control over what is happening and I > > > > don't even recognize the fact that I am dreaming. The dream ... is > > > > my reality while I am having it. I know not that I have a physical > > > > body laying in bed dreaming. > > > > > > We're definitely in agreement on that one. > > > > Well, lol, so would most people. :) That's pretty clear cut really. > > Why is it that dreams are experiences that are subjectively > > individual, yet no one seems to have any difficulty believing that > > others do it? > > There are some pretty common characteristics and themes to dreams, so we > should be able to recognize if someone else is describing a dream. There also seems to be some common characteristics shared between people who have OBE's which are not dreamlike. For example, people who visit other people and describe emotions and objects. Would this not rule out a physical process in the brain or at least make us stop and think there is something non physical happening here? At least make us wonder how we are able to gather this type of data about things and places we have never seen or visited? > > > > > > > When I am OOB, I am fully aware that I have a physical body > > > > laying in bed asleep, I am still fully aware, more so than what I am > > > > within a LD, I can control a lot of aspects of the experience, IE. > > > > where I want to go, what I want to do, but I have little control > > > > over a lot of things that are happening around me. In this way, I > > > > believe that I am not in a dream for the sake that I don't have this > > > > control yet seem to be even more aware of my state than within a LD. > > > > > > How do you try to control them? I also find that the environment can be > > > more stable and realistic in lucid dreams that I enter consciously from > > > waking (whether using OBE or hypnagogic entry), and direct effort of > > > will doesn't seem quite as effective as it does in some more typical > > > lucid dreams, but I can still manage to exert some kind of control over > > > it. For instance, I might wish for a horse to ride, and one doesn't > > > appear instantly, but after a minute I start seeing them nearby. Or I > > > may suggest to myself that I will meet the person I want to meet after > > > going into a certain building, and then I do. > > > > By control, I mean ... I have the same sorts of control as I do in a > > LD ... where I want to go, who I want to see, if I want to come back > > to my physical body. But, a big difference is, that while in a LD > > ... having this control seems a lot easier, as it is an experience > > made up of pure thought. With OBE's, the experience is not all of my > > own making, there seems to be elements of OBE's that originate not > > from within me and not from within anyone else. In this way, it can > > be difficult to have the same control over the experience. Yes, I > > can still manifest objects from my own thoughts, but I believe that > > other perceived things are there, not from my own thoughts which > > have external influences, either from others OOB at the time, or > > from objects within the physical whose *energy* has an influence in > > the astral. Why could I see a tree when I visited my soulmate ... > > which wasn't there anymore? Because I believe all physical objects > > extend an energy which is perceivable in the astral, so that even > > after (or before) the object is there in the physical ... it's > > energy can be perceived astrally as if the object was there in the > > physical. In this way, I perceived a tree there, at her house ... > > which had in fact been cut down a year beforehand. > > Another possibility, though, if we consider the "psychic" possibility, > is that you were tapping into your soul mate's *memories* of the tree. Would this not also mean though, that I was moving my awareness elsewhere, to gather this information from my soulmate? How would I know anything about my soul mates memories of the tree, without having to shift my awareness towards hers? I personally don't believe this is what happened, but I do agree, that something like that is indeed possible. I don't really believe people to be psychic in the sense that they have special powers, I believe people who have visions etc. have the ability to tap into the conscious all in much the same way I believe we do when we get OOB. > > Again, this is > > just based on my theory on how we *see* while we are astral. Ever > > seen those pictures of leaves using that special photography where > > you can see the *aura* around the leaf? This is the energy I am > > talking about. > > Kirlian photography? If I remember right that "aura" isn't considered > to be energy, but I forget what the going scientific theory on it is. > Hey, where's Haunt-dude? He has played with that stuff, and could > probably tell us. Yes, I was thinking of Kirlian photography. :) I guess aura was a wrong word to describe what I was thinking though. I don't believe we pick up on aura's while OOB, but I do believe we sense some form of energy that everything gives off. There is a term for something similar to what I believe, it's called the Odic Fluid or the Odic Rays. > > What if you took the leaf away and took a photo > > again? Or, have you even seen those photos of airforce bases, where > > the *heat* from aircraft can still be seen where they stood warming > > up, even though the aircraft are long gone? What if you weren't > > quite sure what you were looking at at the time? You would swear you > > were looking down on aircraft sitting on the ground, even though > > there were no aircraft there. > > Infrared photography? Yeah, OK, heat is energy. :) > > > > I would consider different possibilities. If it was a really familiar > > > scene and there was nothing special about anything I saw then I would > > > probably conclude that I just had tapped into a wonderfully accurate > > > memory map while dreaming. If I noticed things during the OBE that I > > > later verified as genuine but would not likely have had in my memory or > > > been able to guess from other cues, then I might wonder if it was indeed > > > a literal OBE at last, but I would be more inclined to wonder if I had > > > had some sort of psychic experience and was incorporating clairvoyant > > > perceptions into my dream construction. > > > > So .... where would your clairvoyance originate from, I mean, where > > would you gather your information from for your vision of > > clairvoyance? > > I don't know how it would work. First I'd have to have a number of such > experiences before I concerned myself much with how they work. :) One > possibility I've seen floated around is that there is a universal > consciousness field and people can access information from other points > in the field, other people's individual consciousnesses. I've also seen > claims that "guides" can pass this information to people. > > > > > I > > > > think because of my beliefs and theories about how we sense, or > > > > where we are during an OBE, brings me to believe that even though > > > > there are *dreamsign* type visuals within the experience ... it > > > > still isn't dreaming 'for me'. When does reality blur to dream, and > > > > dream blur to alternate reality? With your theory, there is only > > > > reality as we know it ... and dreams ... afaics anyway. :) > > > > > > No, my theory doesn't completely rule out the possibility of alternate > > > realities. It just says that if if they do exist and we somehow tuned > > > into them while dreaming we would tend to perceive them with subjective > > > distortions because of the "noise" from the dreaming brain. > > > > And this is still how I perceive a lot of my OBE's too. There are so > > many elements that make up my *real* OBE's that WILL be subjective > > to my own experience here in the physical, which will determine how > > I perceive a great amount of the information gathered by me while > > OOB. If I experience something while OOB, which I have no *memory > > model* of in the physical ... when I return to the physical and > > convey to others what I have experienced, my experience while > > physical will be based purely on my physical memory model only. > > Gotcha. > > > > > Maybe, when I think of it, my OBE's are > > > > *dreamlike* in that I don't actually *see* what I sense while OOB, > > > > my mind interprets my astral senses into physical form, I guess you > > > > could say, my mind gives me the imagery of what I am experiencing > > > > based on data from the physical that I have experienced. In this way > > > > I guess my visuals could be called dreams, as my mind is producing > > > > them, but the experience itself still isn't a dream for me. :) It is > > > > a real *non physical* experience, IMO. > > > > > > OK, I think I can grok that. You believe you're picking up some sort of > > > nonphysical data and your mind weaves it into a dream scene for you. > > > > That's still in line with the way I believe dreams are created; you just > > > believe in a source of input for dream perception construction that I > > > don't presently believe in, but can at least imagine. :) > > > > Ahhhhh, at least you understand what I am saying Janice. :) Yes, > > constructing visuals using known memories for things we have never > > experienced before. Does that make it a dream ... I don't think so. > > It does to me. :) The experience itself is still comprised of > subjective interpretations, even if there is some underlying nonphysical > reality to it. > > > It's just a way for us to try to remember something that we have no > > idea of what it is. Take a sentence, and put a heap of blanks in it. > > Now ask people to fill it in. Straight away people will start > > filling in the blanks based on things they have heard before, or > > based on something that sits right with them. How many different > > combinations of the one sentence do you think we would come up with? > > Yet, in the start it was only one known and definite sentence. > > Which not a one of them saw, so their only experience of it is a > complete subjective distortion. Ahhh, but because they never saw it physically beforehand they filled in the blanks based on their own subjective feelings, beliefs or thoughts about what the blanks where, purely on their own memory models. That doesn't make the original sentence any less real, nor does it make what the people saw of the sentence obscure. When someone asks them what the sentence says, and they respond with what they put and it's not the original .... does that mean they never saw the parts of the sentence that they didn't fill in? Does that mean that what they did see, wasn't really there to begin with but simply a part of their own thoughts as well? In much the same way as when someone OOB reports seeing something a little obscurely and is told they must have dreamed it all up. Just because some of the experience doesn't quite fit, doesn't mean it's simply a dream. It doesn't have to be the same as it is in physical reality, based on perception, IMO. > > > So even if you > > > did manage to exert control over an OBE scene, you might conclude that > > > you were controlling your perception of it, but not the underlying > > > source of the perception, right? > > > > While OOB, no ... I can only ever discuss with you my perceptions of > > my OBE's while in a *physical state*, therefore I will ALWAYS be > > interpreting something based on my physical model. While OOB, my > > perception of what I sense is *true* to what I am perceiving, the > > problem lies when conveying the experience while physical, IMO. In > > this way ... yes, I control my perception of what I *believe* I > > sensed while OOB; while in a physical state, undermining that which > > sourced the perception in the first place. > > I understand that in your waking translation you would be introducing > distortions, but how can you be sure you were perceiving it properly in > the first place, while you were OBE? We can misperceive things in > waking life, so why not in OBEs? Yes, this is true, I could be interpreting some things wrongly I concede. But what of the things I fully understand while OOB, such as concepts or sounds or colours that I could never even interpret in a physical way? While I am physical I cannot possible interpret these things and thus I interpret them wrongly or even just don't understand them at all. I can not even begin to understand, while physical, some of the things I have experienced while non physical. Yet, when I experience them again in a non physical state, they become all too familiar again. > > > > Again, I think we all possess these *super powers* anyway, we simply > > are more able to use them while in these ASC's. > > You mean people can fly, and walk through walls, and conjure things > where you come from? Hey, I wanna take a vacation Down Under! :) LMAO ... Janice!!! You know what I mean you cheeky girl!!! We interpret shifts in awareness as flight, because our egos can't handle the fact that we can move distances without some form of movement, IMO. Can we walk through electromagnetic fields in the physical? Yes, so why not be able to walk through the energy we sense, which gets interpreted as physical walls while non physical? WHY walk at all when we don't have legs? It all has to do with beliefs and perception. Why get so hung up on wanting to be away from the physical, yet still be interacting with it so much? It's not the physical we interact with while in an OOB state, it's some sort of non physical counterpart, IMO. We are never in this physical state, as we know it. > > > > Well, I don't think we have any extra *powers* in other realities, > > > > we just know how to use the powers we have to a greater ability. We > > > > are not bound by the everyday rules of physical life. How would I > > > > distinguish them from very, very lifelike dreams? From my > > > > experiences with dreams, LD's and OBE's. I just know. When you > > > > experience something like I did with my soulmate ... it lets you > > > > know (personally only) that it simply is not a dream. > > > > > > Not even a psychic or shared dream? > > > > If/when you understand how/where we go when we dream, you will > > understand how I believe we can experience shared dreams and psychic > > dreams. :) > > Hey, now that's evasive. :) Do you think there's a difference between > shared/psychic dreams and joint OBEs or not? Ahhhh, I should have added an IMO there. ;) Yes, I do believe there is a difference between shared dreams and joint OBE's. :) Simply because of where we gather the information from when having each experience. IMO, the data we gather for the majority of our dreams comes from the dreampools I've talked about before. This would include shared dreams. OBE's take place away from the dreampools, but could probably take place within them if one so wished. If a dreamer where to move his consciousness out of a dreampool, it would require a shift in focus and thus bring the dream state to that of an OBE, IMO. But you could probably shift into a dreampool from within the state of an OBE and still retain the same awareness. All the best Craig -- The sure way to make a thing impossible- -is to think it so. --- Franklin -- ###### Message-ID: <39376354.2B72@not-here.net> From: Janice X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Success (Sorta!) (Please share ideas!) References: <391ad722_1@news3.calweb.com> <391DFC60.2AFAD7DA@satway.com.au> <391E2739.10CF@not-here.net> <3927484F.5BCC5DB9@satway.com.au> <3928C49F.5BC2@not-here.net> <392AE42D.DEC1F8BE@netconnect.com.au> <392B50BB.42C2@not-here.net> <3931C570.399557A8@netconnect.com.au> <393212D9.9353A2C9@netconnect.com.au> <3933E2FD.CB3D6EDE@netconnect.com.au> <39349708.3050@not-here.net> <3934CE98.52082D87@netconnect.com.au> <3935C48F.1860@not-here.net> <39363D62.67628AA7@netconnect.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 45 NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2000 02:31:26 CDT Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing X-Trace: sv2-DmIK5sdQP2dJmkAaUKxsV4CbBoYrOhTTvymeCs0n97ZmF3SFcP7UEqu9HkmmyH+c9sfrTagxtSTC9uv!gbT/PzmldZHUBEEp9k0EsR34caM= X-Complaints-To: abuse@GigaNews.Com X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2000 03:33:40 -0400 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!newsfeed.skycache.com!Cidera!152.163.239.129!portc01.blue.aol.com!nntp2.giganews.com!nntp3.giganews.com!news5.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:43669 Craig Shillington wrote: > > Hi Janice, > > > > Craig Shillington wrote: > > > > {snip} > > > > > So, what are your thoughts on such tests as monitor tests, or > > > placing objects in closed boxes etc.? > > > > I can't even figure out how anyone is supposed to locate the monitor. > > :) I would think you'd need at least a general idea of where the person > > lives in order to home in on them. I don't remember Dr. Price or Phil > > ever saying where they live, but I suppose they may have. > > I can understand what you are saying. How can you find someone if > you don't know where they are? But that only works in a physical > sense Janice. Of cause, when physical, if we want to go somewhere, > we need direction to get there, direction being physical. What if > you had a link to someone though, what if simply thinking about an > aspect of a persons personality, trying to link with them > emotionally, could give you the equivalent of direction in a non > physical sense. When I visited my soulmate, all I knew was where she > lived, the State. When I made the shift to her, I focused on my > feelings for her and the state she lived in. I don't even believe I > needed to worry about the state, but I did it anyway. I believe I > found her because of the emotional link I have with her and that is > how I knew where to find her. For me it was an instantaneous shift, > I was somewhere and thought of her and I was there. I can imagine following through on a strong emotional bond to get to someone without knowing where they are (heck, I think I've even done that with the serial dream characters I created), but who had a strong emotional bond with the guys doing the monitor tests? :D I would think some directions might be necessary in cases like those. > Some people do > find there way in a physical sense though, that is, they still *fly* > following familiar landmarks etc. but I personally don't believe > this to be necessary. I think this is just a part of peoples belief > systems. Yes, it could be a carryover from waking habits and expectations, like so many other things. ###### Message-ID: <39376EDA.1DE2@not-here.net> From: Janice X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Success (Sorta!) (Please share ideas!) References: <391ad722_1@news3.calweb.com> <391DFC60.2AFAD7DA@satway.com.au> <391E2739.10CF@not-here.net> <3927484F.5BCC5DB9@satway.com.au> <3928C49F.5BC2@not-here.net> <392AE42D.DEC1F8BE@netconnect.com.au> <392B50BB.42C2@not-here.net> <3931C570.399557A8@netconnect.com.au> <3934A48D.EDF@not-here.net> <393649FF.47E83EFE@netconnect.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 228 NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2000 03:21:03 CDT Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing X-Trace: sv2-coCTNjyND4PCH961wItEqktuvxX6tIHPHy9pPH2ACgqeorIFwpiikoaiZRcr95VtoavrV1F8eLztKIn!NZO1PsgC8dyJI6INprfFaYrMEJut X-Complaints-To: abuse@GigaNews.Com X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2000 04:22:50 -0400 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!netnews.com!news.servint.com!europa.netcrusader.net!152.163.239.131!portc03.blue.aol.com!nntp2.giganews.com!nntp3.giganews.com!news4.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:43633 Craig Shillington wrote: > > Hi Janice, > > > Time and space are physical concepts, so I never expect these to be > reliable during an OBE. In saying that, I am referring to your > assumption that checking on locations you have visited and finding > differences during an OBE, rules that experience out as an OBE for > you. I guess, in the end I can't tell *you* what you are > experiencing, I just don't go on clues that would tell me because I > saw something OOB and it's not the same in the physical, that it > wasn't an OBE. I'm not saying that you can't have a real time OBE, I > believe that perception during an OBE is related to what we want to > *see* rather than what is actually happening in real time in the > physical. I believe while we are in an OBE state, we can shift our > awareness through time to sense any time we so choose. This is > something I want to experiment a lot more with though. What if we > could see forward and backward in time, simply because time is not a > constant while in the OOB state? Not actually shift in time, but > shift our awareness of time, or what we sense during the time we > want to sense things from. Now, if we are in an OOB state and don't > even realize we are doing this, would that not confuse us? Seeing > objects that simply are not there in real time in the physical, thus > we'd assume we weren't actually visiting those locations, simply > because at this time, those objects aren't there. OK, I can follow that, but it would make things awfully hard to test/confirm. :) > > There are some pretty common characteristics and themes to dreams, so we > > should be able to recognize if someone else is describing a dream. > > There also seems to be some common characteristics shared between > people who have OBE's which are not dreamlike. For example, people > who visit other people and describe emotions and objects. Would this > not rule out a physical process in the brain or at least make us > stop and think there is something non physical happening here? At > least make us wonder how we are able to gather this type of data > about things and places we have never seen or visited? Sure, although I've seen reports of people claiming to do that sort of thing in lucid and nonlucid dreams, hypnagogic hallucinations, meditative visualizations, etc. as well as in OBEs. It makes me wonder if there's anything to "psi," if it can be activated during dreaming, if it will ever be conclusively proven to exist, and if so, if it will perhaps turn out to have an explainable, physical basis (although just conclusively proving it to exist would be cool enough). > > > By control, I mean ... I have the same sorts of control as I do in a > > > LD ... where I want to go, who I want to see, if I want to come back > > > to my physical body. But, a big difference is, that while in a LD > > > ... having this control seems a lot easier, as it is an experience > > > made up of pure thought. With OBE's, the experience is not all of my > > > own making, there seems to be elements of OBE's that originate not > > > from within me and not from within anyone else. In this way, it can > > > be difficult to have the same control over the experience. Yes, I > > > can still manifest objects from my own thoughts, but I believe that > > > other perceived things are there, not from my own thoughts which > > > have external influences, either from others OOB at the time, or > > > from objects within the physical whose *energy* has an influence in > > > the astral. Why could I see a tree when I visited my soulmate ... > > > which wasn't there anymore? Because I believe all physical objects > > > extend an energy which is perceivable in the astral, so that even > > > after (or before) the object is there in the physical ... it's > > > energy can be perceived astrally as if the object was there in the > > > physical. In this way, I perceived a tree there, at her house ... > > > which had in fact been cut down a year beforehand. > > > > Another possibility, though, if we consider the "psychic" possibility, > > is that you were tapping into your soul mate's *memories* of the tree. > > Would this not also mean though, that I was moving my awareness > elsewhere, to gather this information from my soulmate? How would I > know anything about my soul mates memories of the tree, without > having to shift my awareness towards hers? You would (unless of course you were really bringing the information to your location rather than going out to get it, and it only seemed like you were going out to get it?), but it would be more a matter of adjusting the focus of your awareness, and wouldn't require the additional notions of an astral dimension, physical plane energies that impact that dimension, and so on. You know us Occam's Razor types - consider the simpler possibilities first. :) > I personally don't > believe this is what happened, but I do agree, that something like > that is indeed possible. I don't really believe people to be psychic > in the sense that they have special powers, I believe people who > have visions etc. have the ability to tap into the conscious all in > much the same way I believe we do when we get OOB. OK. > Yes, I was thinking of Kirlian photography. :) I guess aura was a > wrong word to describe what I was thinking though. I don't believe > we pick up on aura's while OOB, but I do believe we sense some form > of energy that everything gives off. There is a term for something > similar to what I believe, it's called the Odic Fluid or the Odic > Rays. From that perspective, would it be possible for someone sensitive to these hypothetical rays to distinguish a physical object that is "protruding" into the astral from a plain old self-created image, assuming that the two could combine in any given scene? > > > It's just a way for us to try to remember something that we have no > > > idea of what it is. Take a sentence, and put a heap of blanks in it. > > > Now ask people to fill it in. Straight away people will start > > > filling in the blanks based on things they have heard before, or > > > based on something that sits right with them. How many different > > > combinations of the one sentence do you think we would come up with? > > > Yet, in the start it was only one known and definite sentence. > > > > Which not a one of them saw, so their only experience of it is a > > complete subjective distortion. > > Ahhh, but because they never saw it physically beforehand they > filled in the blanks based on their own subjective feelings, beliefs > or thoughts about what the blanks where, purely on their own memory > models. That doesn't make the original sentence any less real, nor > does it make what the people saw of the sentence obscure. When > someone asks them what the sentence says, and they respond with what > they put and it's not the original .... does that mean they never > saw the parts of the sentence that they didn't fill in? Does that > mean that what they did see, wasn't really there to begin with but > simply a part of their own thoughts as well? In much the same way as > when someone OOB reports seeing something a little obscurely and is > told they must have dreamed it all up. Just because some of the > experience doesn't quite fit, doesn't mean it's simply a dream. It > doesn't have to be the same as it is in physical reality, based on > perception, IMO. I agree that the subjective glosses would not mean that the original source sentence, or the astral target, did not exist. I still would call the experience of perceiving that target dreaming, however. Remember, I think of dreaming as the everyday process of perception construction going on under certain physiological conditions. It doesn't matter what the input source is. Lots of people have had the experience of dozing off while listening to the TV in the background, for instance, and seeing imagery tailored to match the show and its characters. The source of that perception is undeniably real - the sounds coming from the TV. But it's still dreaming. Generating imagery to go with any real "astral" input would also be dreaming to me. > > I understand that in your waking translation you would be introducing > > distortions, but how can you be sure you were perceiving it properly in > > the first place, while you were OBE? We can misperceive things in > > waking life, so why not in OBEs? > > Yes, this is true, I could be interpreting some things wrongly I > concede. But what of the things I fully understand while OOB, such > as concepts or sounds or colours that I could never even interpret > in a physical way? While I am physical I cannot possible interpret > these things and thus I interpret them wrongly or even just don't > understand them at all. I can not even begin to understand, while > physical, some of the things I have experienced while non physical. > Yet, when I experience them again in a non physical state, they > become all too familiar again. Dunno. It's hard for me to understand what sorts of things you're referring to, because the only thing I can think of from my own experience that seems at all similar is the "feeling tones" to certain characters, which I can recognize while lucid dreaming but don't have any waking sense to equate with. > > > Again, I think we all possess these *super powers* anyway, we simply > > > are more able to use them while in these ASC's. > > > > You mean people can fly, and walk through walls, and conjure things > > where you come from? Hey, I wanna take a vacation Down Under! :) > > LMAO ... Janice!!! You know what I mean you cheeky girl!!! We > interpret shifts in awareness as flight, because our egos can't > handle the fact that we can move distances without some form of > movement, IMO. Yes, I think I know what you mean. When learning lucid dreaming skills over time, for instance, it's important to recognize limitations that are just carryovers from waking experience, expectations and habits. The need to travel to get somewhere is one of these. A skilled lucid dreamer can shift the scene or teleport instantaneously, without all the bother. > Can we walk through electromagnetic fields in the > physical? Yes, so why not be able to walk through the energy we > sense, which gets interpreted as physical walls while non physical? I've never been all that good at phasing through walls. I tend to break them down myself. :) > WHY walk at all when we don't have legs? It all has to do with > beliefs and perception. Why get so hung up on wanting to be away > from the physical, yet still be interacting with it so much? It's > not the physical we interact with while in an OOB state, it's some > sort of non physical counterpart, IMO. We are never in this physical > state, as we know it. And why are these so-called "astral bodies" wearing clothes? :) I think that the whole astral body notion is just a matter of waking habit carrying over. > > > If/when you understand how/where we go when we dream, you will > > > understand how I believe we can experience shared dreams and psychic > > > dreams. :) > > > > Hey, now that's evasive. :) Do you think there's a difference between > > shared/psychic dreams and joint OBEs or not? > > Ahhhh, I should have added an IMO there. ;) Yes, I do believe there > is a difference between shared dreams and joint OBE's. :) Simply > because of where we gather the information from when having each > experience. IMO, the data we gather for the majority of our dreams > comes from the dreampools I've talked about before. This would > include shared dreams. OBE's take place away from the dreampools, > but could probably take place within them if one so wished. If a > dreamer where to move his consciousness out of a dreampool, it would > require a shift in focus and thus bring the dream state to that of > an OBE, IMO. But you could probably shift into a dreampool from > within the state of an OBE and still retain the same awareness. OK. I think we just break things up differently. If the primary source of input for perception construction is something you consider real, such as the astral, then to you it's not dreaming. For me, if the primary source of input is anything other than the full complement of waking senses, then it is dreaming. ###### From: "Trish" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <391ad722_1@news3.calweb.com> <391DFC60.2AFAD7DA@satway.com.au> <391E2739.10CF@not-here.net> <3927484F.5BCC5DB9@satway.com.au> <3928C49F.5BC2@not-here.net> <392AE42D.DEC1F8BE@netconnect.com.au> <392B50BB.42C2@not-here.net> <3931C570.399557A8@netconnect.com.au> <393212D9.9353A2C9@netconnect.com.au> <3933E2FD.CB3D6EDE@netconnect.com.au> <39349708.3050@not-here.net> <3934CE98.52082D87@netconnect.com.au> <3935C48F.1860@not-here.net> <39363D62.67628AA7@netconnect.com.au> Subject: Re: Success (Sorta!) (Please share ideas!) Lines: 43 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Message-ID: X-Trace: +r4CDiZGrIgYJlHX9TxXJfWLF8EAsrod3Znl9WdrnO2HJ6gefPBjIFMgRVynK0uLzRSe+zo0NIKI!icfNrsZJLQ/lyE75VjJYa4nxn8KsgPzwvbVnrRYXjxzfVdGThVwRB5ZltRlFllv/c1VhDlMufjaV!zp4Y944= X-Complaints-To: abuse@gte.net X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2000 00:21:39 GMT Distribution: world Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2000 00:21:39 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!washdc3-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:43733 Craig Shillington wrote in message <39363D62.67628AA7@netconnect.com.au>... > > >Hi Janice, >> >> Craig Shillington wrote: >> >> {snip} >> >> > So, what are your thoughts on such tests as monitor tests, or >> > placing objects in closed boxes etc.? >> >> I can't even figure out how anyone is supposed to locate the monitor. >> :) I would think you'd need at least a general idea of where the person >> lives in order to home in on them. I don't remember Dr. Price or Phil >> ever saying where they live, but I suppose they may have. > >I can understand what you are saying. How can you find someone if >you don't know where they are? But that only works in a physical >sense Janice. Of cause, when physical, if we want to go somewhere, >we need direction to get there, direction being physical. What if >you had a link to someone though, what if simply thinking about an >aspect of a persons personality, trying to link with them >emotionally, could give you the equivalent of direction in a non >physical sense. When I visited my soulmate, all I knew was where she >lived, the State. When I made the shift to her, I focused on my >feelings for her and the state she lived in. I don't even believe I >needed to worry about the state, but I did it anyway. I believe I >found her because of the emotional link I have with her and that is >how I knew where to find her. For me it was an instantaneous shift, >I was somewhere and thought of her and I was there. Some people do >find there way in a physical sense though, that is, they still *fly* >following familiar landmarks etc. but I personally don't believe >this to be necessary. I think this is just a part of peoples belief >systems. And .... how would a group of believers feel an emotional type of connection that would lead them to the monitor of a critical skeptic? I think they'd be running in the opposite direction. : ) ###### From: Craig Shillington Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Success (Sorta!) (Please share ideas!) Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 09:37:46 +1000 Organization: De Ja Vous Lines: 63 Message-ID: <393EDCCA.D02AC7B3@netconnect.com.au> References: <391ad722_1@news3.calweb.com> <391DFC60.2AFAD7DA@satway.com.au> <391E2739.10CF@not-here.net> <3927484F.5BCC5DB9@satway.com.au> <3928C49F.5BC2@not-here.net> <392AE42D.DEC1F8BE@netconnect.com.au> <392B50BB.42C2@not-here.net> <3931C570.399557A8@netconnect.com.au> <393212D9.9353A2C9@netconnect.com.au> <3933E2FD.CB3D6EDE@netconnect.com.au> <39349708.3050@not-here.net> <3934CE98.52082D87@netconnect.com.au> <3935C48F.1860@not-here.net> <39363D62.67628AA7@netconnect.com.au> <39376354.2B72@not-here.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: hor-as1-p56.netconnect.net.au (203.87.38.56) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 960425628 3641098 203.87.38.56 (16 [27978]) X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!hor-as1-p56.netconnect.net.AU!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:44350 Hi Janice, > > Craig Shillington wrote: > > > > Hi Janice, > > > > > > Craig Shillington wrote: > > > > > > {snip} > > > > > > > So, what are your thoughts on such tests as monitor tests, or > > > > placing objects in closed boxes etc.? > > > > > > I can't even figure out how anyone is supposed to locate the monitor. > > > :) I would think you'd need at least a general idea of where the person > > > lives in order to home in on them. I don't remember Dr. Price or Phil > > > ever saying where they live, but I suppose they may have. > > > > I can understand what you are saying. How can you find someone if > > you don't know where they are? But that only works in a physical > > sense Janice. Of cause, when physical, if we want to go somewhere, > > we need direction to get there, direction being physical. What if > > you had a link to someone though, what if simply thinking about an > > aspect of a persons personality, trying to link with them > > emotionally, could give you the equivalent of direction in a non > > physical sense. When I visited my soulmate, all I knew was where she > > lived, the State. When I made the shift to her, I focused on my > > feelings for her and the state she lived in. I don't even believe I > > needed to worry about the state, but I did it anyway. I believe I > > found her because of the emotional link I have with her and that is > > how I knew where to find her. For me it was an instantaneous shift, > > I was somewhere and thought of her and I was there. > > I can imagine following through on a strong emotional bond to get to > someone without knowing where they are (heck, I think I've even done > that with the serial dream characters I created), but who had a strong > emotional bond with the guys doing the monitor tests? :D I would think > some directions might be necessary in cases like those. Would anger or frustration directed at certain people count as an emotional bond? > > Some people do > > find there way in a physical sense though, that is, they still *fly* > > following familiar landmarks etc. but I personally don't believe > > this to be necessary. I think this is just a part of peoples belief > > systems. > > Yes, it could be a carryover from waking habits and expectations, like > so many other things. Yes, this is what I believe also. :) All the best Craig -- The sure way to make a thing impossible- -is to think it so. --- Franklin -- ###### From: Craig Shillington Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Success (Sorta!) (Please share ideas!) Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 10:28:32 +1000 Organization: De Ja Vous Lines: 314 Message-ID: <393EE8B0.B49A3543@netconnect.com.au> References: <391ad722_1@news3.calweb.com> <391DFC60.2AFAD7DA@satway.com.au> <391E2739.10CF@not-here.net> <3927484F.5BCC5DB9@satway.com.au> <3928C49F.5BC2@not-here.net> <392AE42D.DEC1F8BE@netconnect.com.au> <392B50BB.42C2@not-here.net> <3931C570.399557A8@netconnect.com.au> <3934A48D.EDF@not-here.net> <393649FF.47E83EFE@netconnect.com.au> <39376EDA.1DE2@not-here.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: hor-as1-p56.netconnect.net.au (203.87.38.56) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 960425636 3641098 203.87.38.56 (16 [27978]) X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.nextra.ch!newsfeed1.online.no!newsfeed.online.no!news-feed.ifi.uio.no!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!hor-as1-p56.netconnect.net.AU!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:44342 Hi Janice. :) > > Craig Shillington wrote: > > > > Hi Janice, > > > > > > > Time and space are physical concepts, so I never expect these to be > > reliable during an OBE. In saying that, I am referring to your > > assumption that checking on locations you have visited and finding > > differences during an OBE, rules that experience out as an OBE for > > you. I guess, in the end I can't tell *you* what you are > > experiencing, I just don't go on clues that would tell me because I > > saw something OOB and it's not the same in the physical, that it > > wasn't an OBE. I'm not saying that you can't have a real time OBE, I > > believe that perception during an OBE is related to what we want to > > *see* rather than what is actually happening in real time in the > > physical. I believe while we are in an OBE state, we can shift our > > awareness through time to sense any time we so choose. This is > > something I want to experiment a lot more with though. What if we > > could see forward and backward in time, simply because time is not a > > constant while in the OOB state? Not actually shift in time, but > > shift our awareness of time, or what we sense during the time we > > want to sense things from. Now, if we are in an OOB state and don't > > even realize we are doing this, would that not confuse us? Seeing > > objects that simply are not there in real time in the physical, thus > > we'd assume we weren't actually visiting those locations, simply > > because at this time, those objects aren't there. > > OK, I can follow that, but it would make things awfully hard to > test/confirm. :) YES!!!! WHEW. It sure would. :) (raising hands in the air and crying out *AMEN*) ;) Now, if others could even just try to understand this concept, they could then work on some other form of testing that could take this into account. :) If they believed at all in the workings of my theories. LOL > > > There are some pretty common characteristics and themes to dreams, so we > > > should be able to recognize if someone else is describing a dream. > > > > There also seems to be some common characteristics shared between > > people who have OBE's which are not dreamlike. For example, people > > who visit other people and describe emotions and objects. Would this > > not rule out a physical process in the brain or at least make us > > stop and think there is something non physical happening here? At > > least make us wonder how we are able to gather this type of data > > about things and places we have never seen or visited? > > Sure, although I've seen reports of people claiming to do that sort of > thing in lucid and nonlucid dreams, hypnagogic hallucinations, > meditative visualizations, etc. as well as in OBEs. It makes me wonder > if there's anything to "psi," if it can be activated during dreaming, if > it will ever be conclusively proven to exist, and if so, if it will > perhaps turn out to have an explainable, physical basis (although just > conclusively proving it to exist would be cool enough). Yes, it sure would. Maybe, if it exists, it has conscious origins which can somehow manifest in some people during the physical state in certain ways? > > > > By control, I mean ... I have the same sorts of control as I do in a > > > > LD ... where I want to go, who I want to see, if I want to come back > > > > to my physical body. But, a big difference is, that while in a LD > > > > ... having this control seems a lot easier, as it is an experience > > > > made up of pure thought. With OBE's, the experience is not all of my > > > > own making, there seems to be elements of OBE's that originate not > > > > from within me and not from within anyone else. In this way, it can > > > > be difficult to have the same control over the experience. Yes, I > > > > can still manifest objects from my own thoughts, but I believe that > > > > other perceived things are there, not from my own thoughts which > > > > have external influences, either from others OOB at the time, or > > > > from objects within the physical whose *energy* has an influence in > > > > the astral. Why could I see a tree when I visited my soulmate ... > > > > which wasn't there anymore? Because I believe all physical objects > > > > extend an energy which is perceivable in the astral, so that even > > > > after (or before) the object is there in the physical ... it's > > > > energy can be perceived astrally as if the object was there in the > > > > physical. In this way, I perceived a tree there, at her house ... > > > > which had in fact been cut down a year beforehand. > > > > > > Another possibility, though, if we consider the "psychic" possibility, > > > is that you were tapping into your soul mate's *memories* of the tree. > > > > Would this not also mean though, that I was moving my awareness > > elsewhere, to gather this information from my soulmate? How would I > > know anything about my soul mates memories of the tree, without > > having to shift my awareness towards hers? > > You would (unless of course you were really bringing the information to > your location rather than going out to get it, and it only seemed like > you were going out to get it?), but it would be more a matter of > adjusting the focus of your awareness, and wouldn't require the > additional notions of an astral dimension, physical plane energies that > impact that dimension, and so on. You know us Occam's Razor types - > consider the simpler possibilities first. :) Hmmmm, I would have thought the simpler possibility in my case with sensing the tree, would be that I could still sense the energy from the tree, not my soulmate's memories of the tree. What would be simpler, just sensing the energy of the tree as I stood and looked at it's source, or wandering through my soulmate's memories and finding a memory of the tree at the very moment I was standing where it was .... without even thinking about what I was doing to bring about my awareness of the tree in the first place? > > I personally don't > > believe this is what happened, but I do agree, that something like > > that is indeed possible. I don't really believe people to be psychic > > in the sense that they have special powers, I believe people who > > have visions etc. have the ability to tap into the conscious all in > > much the same way I believe we do when we get OOB. > > OK. > > > Yes, I was thinking of Kirlian photography. :) I guess aura was a > > wrong word to describe what I was thinking though. I don't believe > > we pick up on aura's while OOB, but I do believe we sense some form > > of energy that everything gives off. There is a term for something > > similar to what I believe, it's called the Odic Fluid or the Odic > > Rays. > > From that perspective, would it be possible for someone sensitive to > these hypothetical rays to distinguish a physical object that is > "protruding" into the astral from a plain old self-created image, > assuming that the two could combine in any given scene? Hmmmmm, damn good question Janice!! In what ways could we try to distinguish between things we are sensing that are not created from within as such, and those that are self created from our subconscious? I guess, if we create an object, then we manage it, we have internal personal links with that object ... ones that are not self created would still be internal (coming from the conscious all) but would not be personal. But how to tell them apart? I don't have any ideas on that at the moment ... but will think about it ... trust me! :) (Need to get over my long drought from OBE's first) > > > > It's just a way for us to try to remember something that we have no > > > > idea of what it is. Take a sentence, and put a heap of blanks in it. > > > > Now ask people to fill it in. Straight away people will start > > > > filling in the blanks based on things they have heard before, or > > > > based on something that sits right with them. How many different > > > > combinations of the one sentence do you think we would come up with? > > > > Yet, in the start it was only one known and definite sentence. > > > > > > Which not a one of them saw, so their only experience of it is a > > > complete subjective distortion. > > > > Ahhh, but because they never saw it physically beforehand they > > filled in the blanks based on their own subjective feelings, beliefs > > or thoughts about what the blanks where, purely on their own memory > > models. That doesn't make the original sentence any less real, nor > > does it make what the people saw of the sentence obscure. When > > someone asks them what the sentence says, and they respond with what > > they put and it's not the original .... does that mean they never > > saw the parts of the sentence that they didn't fill in? Does that > > mean that what they did see, wasn't really there to begin with but > > simply a part of their own thoughts as well? In much the same way as > > when someone OOB reports seeing something a little obscurely and is > > told they must have dreamed it all up. Just because some of the > > experience doesn't quite fit, doesn't mean it's simply a dream. It > > doesn't have to be the same as it is in physical reality, based on > > perception, IMO. > > I agree that the subjective glosses would not mean that the original > source sentence, or the astral target, did not exist. I still would > call the experience of perceiving that target dreaming, however. > Remember, I think of dreaming as the everyday process of perception > construction going on under certain physiological conditions. It > doesn't matter what the input source is. Lots of people have had the > experience of dozing off while listening to the TV in the background, > for instance, and seeing imagery tailored to match the show and its > characters. The source of that perception is undeniably real - the > sounds coming from the TV. But it's still dreaming. Generating imagery > to go with any real "astral" input would also be dreaming to me. Ahhhhhhhh!!! I see. :) Yes, I can follow that perfectly. So, in a matter of terms, when we perceive something will OOB, which we need to draw from out memory bank to interpret it using something similar, then for you it is dreamed because of the function of 'making the unknowns known' albeit incorrectly. Dreamed. :) In that sense, following your line of thought, yes, I agree, that is a dream interpretation. It still doesn't make the OBE and what was originally sensed a dream though, even for you, if you follow my lines of thought on what we are experiencing, does it? > > > I understand that in your waking translation you would be introducing > > > distortions, but how can you be sure you were perceiving it properly in > > > the first place, while you were OBE? We can misperceive things in > > > waking life, so why not in OBEs? > > > > Yes, this is true, I could be interpreting some things wrongly I > > concede. But what of the things I fully understand while OOB, such > > as concepts or sounds or colours that I could never even interpret > > in a physical way? While I am physical I cannot possible interpret > > these things and thus I interpret them wrongly or even just don't > > understand them at all. I can not even begin to understand, while > > physical, some of the things I have experienced while non physical. > > Yet, when I experience them again in a non physical state, they > > become all too familiar again. > > Dunno. It's hard for me to understand what sorts of things you're > referring to, because the only thing I can think of from my own > experience that seems at all similar is the "feeling tones" to certain > characters, which I can recognize while lucid dreaming but don't have > any waking sense to equate with. There are times when I get OOB when I can feel sensations which are so powerfully known to me that I swear I have felt them forever. One of these sensations is that which I experience directly after separation. Anyone who has separated before, should know what I am talking about. Even on my very first separation, I knew that how I felt was very very familiar to me and I understood why, WHEN I AM OUT. But when I return here to the physical ... I simply cannot fathom what sensation I was feeling, nor can I understand anymore why it is so familiar to me. All I know is (while physical) I have been like that before ... so many times, somewhere, sometime else and for a very very long time. That feeling is so familiar to me, yet I am at a loss to explain why, or even what the sensation feels like while I am physical. > > > > Again, I think we all possess these *super powers* anyway, we simply > > > > are more able to use them while in these ASC's. > > > > > > You mean people can fly, and walk through walls, and conjure things > > > where you come from? Hey, I wanna take a vacation Down Under! :) > > > > LMAO ... Janice!!! You know what I mean you cheeky girl!!! We > > interpret shifts in awareness as flight, because our egos can't > > handle the fact that we can move distances without some form of > > movement, IMO. > > Yes, I think I know what you mean. When learning lucid dreaming skills > over time, for instance, it's important to recognize limitations that > are just carryovers from waking experience, expectations and habits. > The need to travel to get somewhere is one of these. A skilled lucid > dreamer can shift the scene or teleport instantaneously, without all the > bother. VBS ... exactly. :) > > Can we walk through electromagnetic fields in the > > physical? Yes, so why not be able to walk through the energy we > > sense, which gets interpreted as physical walls while non physical? > > I've never been all that good at phasing through walls. I tend to break > them down myself. :) There was one OBE I had where I wanted to pass through the fly mesh on our front door. When I started to push through it, I simply pushed it outwards, as if I were physical. I could feel it as if I was awake and pushing on the darn thing. After a while, I focused and suddenly my hand slipped through it and I felt it passing through my hand, as soon as this happened, it became possible for me to pass right through it and outside. I think what happens in cases like this is, we confuse ourselves by thinking about what we are doing too much. Rather than thinking about passing through walls (subconscious / ego time: Can't possibly do that!!!) just do it. Why can you fly in your LD's, yet break down walls rather than walk through them? :) > > WHY walk at all when we don't have legs? It all has to do with > > beliefs and perception. Why get so hung up on wanting to be away > > from the physical, yet still be interacting with it so much? It's > > not the physical we interact with while in an OOB state, it's some > > sort of non physical counterpart, IMO. We are never in this physical > > state, as we know it. > > And why are these so-called "astral bodies" wearing clothes? :) I think > that the whole astral body notion is just a matter of waking habit > carrying over. YES. :) Yes. How can we clothe a point of consciousness? :) > > > > If/when you understand how/where we go when we dream, you will > > > > understand how I believe we can experience shared dreams and psychic > > > > dreams. :) > > > > > > Hey, now that's evasive. :) Do you think there's a difference between > > > shared/psychic dreams and joint OBEs or not? > > > > Ahhhh, I should have added an IMO there. ;) Yes, I do believe there > > is a difference between shared dreams and joint OBE's. :) Simply > > because of where we gather the information from when having each > > experience. IMO, the data we gather for the majority of our dreams > > comes from the dreampools I've talked about before. This would > > include shared dreams. OBE's take place away from the dreampools, > > but could probably take place within them if one so wished. If a > > dreamer where to move his consciousness out of a dreampool, it would > > require a shift in focus and thus bring the dream state to that of > > an OBE, IMO. But you could probably shift into a dreampool from > > within the state of an OBE and still retain the same awareness. > > OK. I think we just break things up differently. If the primary source > of input for perception construction is something you consider real, > such as the astral, then to you it's not dreaming. For me, if the > primary source of input is anything other than the full complement of > waking senses, then it is dreaming. VBS. Yes I agree Janice, I think we are using different models to describe many similar things. Maybe that's why you tend to understand me a lot more than others do. LOL :) All the best Craig -- The sure way to make a thing impossible- -is to think it so. --- Franklin -- ###### Message-ID: <393FD161.43E4@not-here.net> From: Janice X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Success (Sorta!) (Please share ideas!) References: <391ad722_1@news3.calweb.com> <391DFC60.2AFAD7DA@satway.com.au> <391E2739.10CF@not-here.net> <3927484F.5BCC5DB9@satway.com.au> <3928C49F.5BC2@not-here.net> <392AE42D.DEC1F8BE@netconnect.com.au> <392B50BB.42C2@not-here.net> <3931C570.399557A8@netconnect.com.au> <393212D9.9353A2C9@netconnect.com.au> <3933E2FD.CB3D6EDE@netconnect.com.au> <39349708.3050@not-here.net> <3934CE98.52082D87@netconnect.com.au> <3935C48F.1860@not-here.net> <39363D62.67628AA7@netconnect.com.au> <39376354.2B72@not-here.net> <393EDCCA.D02AC7B3@netconnect.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 26 NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 11:59:29 CDT Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing X-Trace: sv2-vOiTsum0BK9RGWg9XOUm0Ws2Z2bgB0N03mM3fapL1RfrhR/20XOu3KziQlVJOUjVZ54WDDb3Ql1NBXT!e9fXs/kYWJ3m6hF3O9wpaHRxdKE= X-Complaints-To: abuse@GigaNews.Com X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 13:01:21 -0400 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!korova.insync.net!solomon.io.com!nntp.giganews.com!nntp3.giganews.com!news6.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:44206 Craig Shillington wrote: > > > > I can imagine following through on a strong emotional bond to get to > > someone without knowing where they are (heck, I think I've even done > > that with the serial dream characters I created), but who had a strong > > emotional bond with the guys doing the monitor tests? :D I would think > > some directions might be necessary in cases like those. > > Would anger or frustration directed at certain people count as an > emotional bond? Ha! It might, but I don't think the people who felt the anger and frustration even bothered with those experiments, did they? > > > Some people do > > > find there way in a physical sense though, that is, they still *fly* > > > following familiar landmarks etc. but I personally don't believe > > > this to be necessary. I think this is just a part of peoples belief > > > systems. > > > > Yes, it could be a carryover from waking habits and expectations, like > > so many other things. > > Yes, this is what I believe also. :) Yeah, kinda like astral bodies in pajamas. ;) ###### Message-ID: <3940EB76.B2A@not-here.net> From: Janice X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Success (Sorta!) (Please share ideas!) References: <391ad722_1@news3.calweb.com> <391DFC60.2AFAD7DA@satway.com.au> <391E2739.10CF@not-here.net> <3927484F.5BCC5DB9@satway.com.au> <3928C49F.5BC2@not-here.net> <392AE42D.DEC1F8BE@netconnect.com.au> <392B50BB.42C2@not-here.net> <3931C570.399557A8@netconnect.com.au> <3934A48D.EDF@not-here.net> <393649FF.47E83EFE@netconnect.com.au> <39376EDA.1DE2@not-here.net> <393EE8B0.B49A3543@netconnect.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 197 NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 08:03:00 CDT Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing X-Trace: sv2-gQKdq56e4FvNCZtl2+jKGhnnX5wofi5zz+jtve9wv9IV3ShOTAw/eBo9z6fwQHOBZzlQkKwCFqZwyW5!WG7QaAfbcsW85VWRt0jwyn61ZAWJ X-Complaints-To: abuse@GigaNews.Com X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 09:04:54 -0400 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!howland.erols.net!portc.blue.aol.com.MISMATCH!portc03.blue.aol.com!nntp2.giganews.com!nntp3.giganews.com!news6.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:44447 Craig Shillington wrote: > > > > > Time and space are physical concepts, so I never expect these to be > > > reliable during an OBE. In saying that, I am referring to your > > > assumption that checking on locations you have visited and finding > > > differences during an OBE, rules that experience out as an OBE for > > > you. I guess, in the end I can't tell *you* what you are > > > experiencing, I just don't go on clues that would tell me because I > > > saw something OOB and it's not the same in the physical, that it > > > wasn't an OBE. I'm not saying that you can't have a real time OBE, I > > > believe that perception during an OBE is related to what we want to > > > *see* rather than what is actually happening in real time in the > > > physical. I believe while we are in an OBE state, we can shift our > > > awareness through time to sense any time we so choose. This is > > > something I want to experiment a lot more with though. What if we > > > could see forward and backward in time, simply because time is not a > > > constant while in the OOB state? Not actually shift in time, but > > > shift our awareness of time, or what we sense during the time we > > > want to sense things from. Now, if we are in an OOB state and don't > > > even realize we are doing this, would that not confuse us? Seeing > > > objects that simply are not there in real time in the physical, thus > > > we'd assume we weren't actually visiting those locations, simply > > > because at this time, those objects aren't there. > > > > OK, I can follow that, but it would make things awfully hard to > > test/confirm. :) > > YES!!!! WHEW. It sure would. :) (raising hands in the air and crying > out *AMEN*) ;) Now, if others could even just try to understand this > concept, they could then work on some other form of testing that > could take this into account. :) If they believed at all in the > workings of my theories. LOL Well, if you know how it all works, YOU come up with reasonable tests, OK? :) > > > There also seems to be some common characteristics shared between > > > people who have OBE's which are not dreamlike. For example, people > > > who visit other people and describe emotions and objects. Would this > > > not rule out a physical process in the brain or at least make us > > > stop and think there is something non physical happening here? At > > > least make us wonder how we are able to gather this type of data > > > about things and places we have never seen or visited? > > > > Sure, although I've seen reports of people claiming to do that sort of > > thing in lucid and nonlucid dreams, hypnagogic hallucinations, > > meditative visualizations, etc. as well as in OBEs. It makes me wonder > > if there's anything to "psi," if it can be activated during dreaming, if > > it will ever be conclusively proven to exist, and if so, if it will > > perhaps turn out to have an explainable, physical basis (although just > > conclusively proving it to exist would be cool enough). > > Yes, it sure would. Maybe, if it exists, it has conscious origins > which can somehow manifest in some people during the physical state > in certain ways? I would expect that if it exists it could manifest in all states, but might be a little easier when regular sensory input isn't there as a distraction. > > > > Another possibility, though, if we consider the "psychic" possibility, > > > > is that you were tapping into your soul mate's *memories* of the tree. > > > > > > Would this not also mean though, that I was moving my awareness > > > elsewhere, to gather this information from my soulmate? How would I > > > know anything about my soul mates memories of the tree, without > > > having to shift my awareness towards hers? > > > > You would (unless of course you were really bringing the information to > > your location rather than going out to get it, and it only seemed like > > you were going out to get it?), but it would be more a matter of > > adjusting the focus of your awareness, and wouldn't require the > > additional notions of an astral dimension, physical plane energies that > > impact that dimension, and so on. You know us Occam's Razor types - > > consider the simpler possibilities first. :) > > Hmmmm, I would have thought the simpler possibility in my case with > sensing the tree, would be that I could still sense the energy from > the tree, not my soulmate's memories of the tree. What would be > simpler, just sensing the energy of the tree as I stood and looked > at it's source, or wandering through my soulmate's memories and > finding a memory of the tree at the very moment I was standing where > it was .... without even thinking about what I was doing to bring > about my awareness of the tree in the first place? Think of "simpler" in terms of "fewer notions for skeptics to get their minds around." :) Saying that you're sensing the energy of the tree would require us to believe that there's such a thing as energies from physical objects, a nonphysical realm into which such energies can leak, that the energy can be there even after the object is physically gone, and so on. At least we all agree that there is such a thing as memory. > > > Yes, I was thinking of Kirlian photography. :) I guess aura was a > > > wrong word to describe what I was thinking though. I don't believe > > > we pick up on aura's while OOB, but I do believe we sense some form > > > of energy that everything gives off. There is a term for something > > > similar to what I believe, it's called the Odic Fluid or the Odic > > > Rays. > > > > From that perspective, would it be possible for someone sensitive to > > these hypothetical rays to distinguish a physical object that is > > "protruding" into the astral from a plain old self-created image, > > assuming that the two could combine in any given scene? > > Hmmmmm, damn good question Janice!! In what ways could we try to > distinguish between things we are sensing that are not created from > within as such, and those that are self created from our > subconscious? I guess, if we create an object, then we manage it, we > have internal personal links with that object ... ones that are not > self created would still be internal (coming from the conscious all) > but would not be personal. But how to tell them apart? I don't have > any ideas on that at the moment ... but will think about it ... > trust me! :) (Need to get over my long drought from OBE's first) OK, keep me posted as the ideas roll in. :) > > I agree that the subjective glosses would not mean that the original > > source sentence, or the astral target, did not exist. I still would > > call the experience of perceiving that target dreaming, however. > > Remember, I think of dreaming as the everyday process of perception > > construction going on under certain physiological conditions. It > > doesn't matter what the input source is. Lots of people have had the > > experience of dozing off while listening to the TV in the background, > > for instance, and seeing imagery tailored to match the show and its > > characters. The source of that perception is undeniably real - the > > sounds coming from the TV. But it's still dreaming. Generating imagery > > to go with any real "astral" input would also be dreaming to me. > > Ahhhhhhhh!!! I see. :) Yes, I can follow that perfectly. So, in a > matter of terms, when we perceive something will OOB, which we need > to draw from out memory bank to interpret it using something > similar, then for you it is dreamed because of the function of > 'making the unknowns known' albeit incorrectly. Dreamed. :) In that > sense, following your line of thought, yes, I agree, that is a dream > interpretation. It still doesn't make the OBE and what was > originally sensed a dream though, even for you, if you follow my > lines of thought on what we are experiencing, does it? It wouldn't necessarily make what was originally sensed, the input source, be unreal, no, but it does make the OBE, as the subjective *experience* of that input source, a dream. > There are times when I get OOB when I can feel sensations which are > so powerfully known to me that I swear I have felt them forever. One > of these sensations is that which I experience directly after > separation. Anyone who has separated before, should know what I am > talking about. Even on my very first separation, I knew that how I > felt was very very familiar to me and I understood why, WHEN I AM > OUT. But when I return here to the physical ... I simply cannot > fathom what sensation I was feeling, nor can I understand anymore > why it is so familiar to me. All I know is (while physical) I have > been like that before ... so many times, somewhere, sometime else > and for a very very long time. That feeling is so familiar to me, > yet I am at a loss to explain why, or even what the sensation feels > like while I am physical. OK. > > > > Can we walk through electromagnetic fields in the > > > physical? Yes, so why not be able to walk through the energy we > > > sense, which gets interpreted as physical walls while non physical? > > > > I've never been all that good at phasing through walls. I tend to break > > them down myself. :) > > There was one OBE I had where I wanted to pass through the fly mesh > on our front door. When I started to push through it, I simply > pushed it outwards, as if I were physical. I could feel it as if I > was awake and pushing on the darn thing. After a while, I focused > and suddenly my hand slipped through it and I felt it passing > through my hand, as soon as this happened, it became possible for me > to pass right through it and outside. I think what happens in cases > like this is, we confuse ourselves by thinking about what we are > doing too much. Rather than thinking about passing through walls > (subconscious / ego time: Can't possibly do that!!!) just do it. Why > can you fly in your LD's, yet break down walls rather than walk > through them? :) I think it's just a stylistic thing that I got into, thinking of the dream world as a stage set full of flimsy props. Once I read about other people phasing through walls and practiced it, I was able to do it. You can think of yourself as insubstantial and the wall as solid, or think of the wall as insubstantial and yourself as solid, or just act as if the wall isn't really there; whatever works. > > OK. I think we just break things up differently. If the primary source > > of input for perception construction is something you consider real, > > such as the astral, then to you it's not dreaming. For me, if the > > primary source of input is anything other than the full complement of > > waking senses, then it is dreaming. > > VBS. Yes I agree Janice, I think we are using different models to > describe many similar things. Maybe that's why you tend to > understand me a lot more than others do. LOL :) Cool. Message-ID: <3940EB76.B2A@not-here.net> From: Janice X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Success (Sorta!) (Please share ideas!) References: <391ad722_1@news3.calweb.com> <391DFC60.2AFAD7DA@satway.com.au> <391E2739.10CF@not-here.net> <3927484F.5BCC5DB9@satway.com.au> <3928C49F.5BC2@not-here.net> <392AE42D.DEC1F8BE@netconnect.com.au> <392B50BB.42C2@not-here.net> <3931C570.399557A8@netconnect.com.au> <3934A48D.EDF@not-here.net> <393649FF.47E83EFE@netconnect.com.au> <39376EDA.1DE2@not-here.net> <393EE8B0.B49A3543@netconnect.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 197 NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 08:03:00 CDT Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing X-Trace: sv2-gQKdq56e4FvNCZtl2+jKGhnnX5wofi5zz+jtve9wv9IV3ShOTAw/eBo9z6fwQHOBZzlQkKwCFqZwyW5!WG7QaAfbcsW85VWRt0jwyn61ZAWJ X-Complaints-To: abuse@GigaNews.Com X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 09:04:54 -0400 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!howland.erols.net!portc.blue.aol.com.MISMATCH!portc03.blue.aol.com!nntp2.giganews.com!nntp3.giganews.com!news6.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:44447 Craig Shillington wrote: > > > > > Time and space are physical concepts, so I never expect these to be > > > reliable during an OBE. In saying that, I am referring to your > > > assumption that checking on locations you have visited and finding > > > differences during an OBE, rules that experience out as an OBE for > > > you. I guess, in the end I can't tell *you* what you are > > > experiencing, I just don't go on clues that would tell me because I > > > saw something OOB and it's not the same in the physical, that it > > > wasn't an OBE. I'm not saying that you can't have a real time OBE, I > > > believe that perception during an OBE is related to what we want to > > > *see* rather than what is actually happening in real time in the > > > physical. I believe while we are in an OBE state, we can shift our > > > awareness through time to sense any time we so choose. This is > > > something I want to experiment a lot more with though. What if we > > > could see forward and backward in time, simply because time is not a > > > constant while in the OOB state? Not actually shift in time, but > > > shift our awareness of time, or what we sense during the time we > > > want to sense things from. Now, if we are in an OOB state and don't > > > even realize we are doing this, would that not confuse us? Seeing > > > objects that simply are not there in real time in the physical, thus > > > we'd assume we weren't actually visiting those locations, simply > > > because at this time, those objects aren't there. > > > > OK, I can follow that, but it would make things awfully hard to > > test/confirm. :) > > YES!!!! WHEW. It sure would. :) (raising hands in the air and crying > out *AMEN*) ;) Now, if others could even just try to understand this > concept, they could then work on some other form of testing that > could take this into account. :) If they believed at all in the > workings of my theories. LOL Well, if you know how it all works, YOU come up with reasonable tests, OK? :) > > > There also seems to be some common characteristics shared between > > > people who have OBE's which are not dreamlike. For example, people > > > who visit other people and describe emotions and objects. Would this > > > not rule out a physical process in the brain or at least make us > > > stop and think there is something non physical happening here? At > > > least make us wonder how we are able to gather this type of data > > > about things and places we have never seen or visited? > > > > Sure, although I've seen reports of people claiming to do that sort of > > thing in lucid and nonlucid dreams, hypnagogic hallucinations, > > meditative visualizations, etc. as well as in OBEs. It makes me wonder > > if there's anything to "psi," if it can be activated during dreaming, if > > it will ever be conclusively proven to exist, and if so, if it will > > perhaps turn out to have an explainable, physical basis (although just > > conclusively proving it to exist would be cool enough). > > Yes, it sure would. Maybe, if it exists, it has conscious origins > which can somehow manifest in some people during the physical state > in certain ways? I would expect that if it exists it could manifest in all states, but might be a little easier when regular sensory input isn't there as a distraction. > > > > Another possibility, though, if we consider the "psychic" possibility, > > > > is that you were tapping into your soul mate's *memories* of the tree. > > > > > > Would this not also mean though, that I was moving my awareness > > > elsewhere, to gather this information from my soulmate? How would I > > > know anything about my soul mates memories of the tree, without > > > having to shift my awareness towards hers? > > > > You would (unless of course you were really bringing the information to > > your location rather than going out to get it, and it only seemed like > > you were going out to get it?), but it would be more a matter of > > adjusting the focus of your awareness, and wouldn't require the > > additional notions of an astral dimension, physical plane energies that > > impact that dimension, and so on. You know us Occam's Razor types - > > consider the simpler possibilities first. :) > > Hmmmm, I would have thought the simpler possibility in my case with > sensing the tree, would be that I could still sense the energy from > the tree, not my soulmate's memories of the tree. What would be > simpler, just sensing the energy of the tree as I stood and looked > at it's source, or wandering through my soulmate's memories and > finding a memory of the tree at the very moment I was standing where > it was .... without even thinking about what I was doing to bring > about my awareness of the tree in the first place? Think of "simpler" in terms of "fewer notions for skeptics to get their minds around." :) Saying that you're sensing the energy of the tree would require us to believe that there's such a thing as energies from physical objects, a nonphysical realm into which such energies can leak, that the energy can be there even after the object is physically gone, and so on. At least we all agree that there is such a thing as memory. > > > Yes, I was thinking of Kirlian photography. :) I guess aura was a > > > wrong word to describe what I was thinking though. I don't believe > > > we pick up on aura's while OOB, but I do believe we sense some form > > > of energy that everything gives off. There is a term for something > > > similar to what I believe, it's called the Odic Fluid or the Odic > > > Rays. > > > > From that perspective, would it be possible for someone sensitive to > > these hypothetical rays to distinguish a physical object that is > > "protruding" into the astral from a plain old self-created image, > > assuming that the two could combine in any given scene? > > Hmmmmm, damn good question Janice!! In what ways could we try to > distinguish between things we are sensing that are not created from > within as such, and those that are self created from our > subconscious? I guess, if we create an object, then we manage it, we > have internal personal links with that object ... ones that are not > self created would still be internal (coming from the conscious all) > but would not be personal. But how to tell them apart? I don't have > any ideas on that at the moment ... but will think about it ... > trust me! :) (Need to get over my long drought from OBE's first) OK, keep me posted as the ideas roll in. :) > > I agree that the subjective glosses would not mean that the original > > source sentence, or the astral target, did not exist. I still would > > call the experience of perceiving that target dreaming, however. > > Remember, I think of dreaming as the everyday process of perception > > construction going on under certain physiological conditions. It > > doesn't matter what the input source is. Lots of people have had the > > experience of dozing off while listening to the TV in the background, > > for instance, and seeing imagery tailored to match the show and its > > characters. The source of that perception is undeniably real - the > > sounds coming from the TV. But it's still dreaming. Generating imagery > > to go with any real "astral" input would also be dreaming to me. > > Ahhhhhhhh!!! I see. :) Yes, I can follow that perfectly. So, in a > matter of terms, when we perceive something will OOB, which we need > to draw from out memory bank to interpret it using something > similar, then for you it is dreamed because of the function of > 'making the unknowns known' albeit incorrectly. Dreamed. :) In that > sense, following your line of thought, yes, I agree, that is a dream > interpretation. It still doesn't make the OBE and what was > originally sensed a dream though, even for you, if you follow my > lines of thought on what we are experiencing, does it? It wouldn't necessarily make what was originally sensed, the input source, be unreal, no, but it does make the OBE, as the subjective *experience* of that input source, a dream. > There are times when I get OOB when I can feel sensations which are > so powerfully known to me that I swear I have felt them forever. One > of these sensations is that which I experience directly after > separation. Anyone who has separated before, should know what I am > talking about. Even on my very first separation, I knew that how I > felt was very very familiar to me and I understood why, WHEN I AM > OUT. But when I return here to the physical ... I simply cannot > fathom what sensation I was feeling, nor can I understand anymore > why it is so familiar to me. All I know is (while physical) I have > been like that before ... so many times, somewhere, sometime else > and for a very very long time. That feeling is so familiar to me, > yet I am at a loss to explain why, or even what the sensation feels > like while I am physical. OK. > > > > Can we walk through electromagnetic fields in the > > > physical? Yes, so why not be able to walk through the energy we > > > sense, which gets interpreted as physical walls while non physical? > > > > I've never been all that good at phasing through walls. I tend to break > > them down myself. :) > > There was one OBE I had where I wanted to pass through the fly mesh > on our front door. When I started to push through it, I simply > pushed it outwards, as if I were physical. I could feel it as if I > was awake and pushing on the darn thing. After a while, I focused > and suddenly my hand slipped through it and I felt it passing > through my hand, as soon as this happened, it became possible for me > to pass right through it and outside. I think what happens in cases > like this is, we confuse ourselves by thinking about what we are > doing too much. Rather than thinking about passing through walls > (subconscious / ego time: Can't possibly do that!!!) just do it. Why > can you fly in your LD's, yet break down walls rather than walk > through them? :) I think it's just a stylistic thing that I got into, thinking of the dream world as a stage set full of flimsy props. Once I read about other people phasing through walls and practiced it, I was able to do it. You can think of yourself as insubstantial and the wall as solid, or think of the wall as insubstantial and yourself as solid, or just act as if the wall isn't really there; whatever works. > > OK. I think we just break things up differently. If the primary source > > of input for perception construction is something you consider real, > > such as the astral, then to you it's not dreaming. For me, if the > > primary source of input is anything other than the full complement of > > waking senses, then it is dreaming. > > VBS. Yes I agree Janice, I think we are using different models to > describe many similar things. Maybe that's why you tend to > understand me a lot more than others do. LOL :) Cool.